The guidelines say: "Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it."
"Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create them routinely. On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to."
I honestly think there's a good chance your decision in this case goes against the spirit of the rules, dang.
However, I disagree with the assertion that my comment was about ideology or politics. My comment was about the very concrete conditions of life of someone working in the tech industry in California, which is why I thought it may be of interest to the readers of HN.
The situation I mentioned is not about following this or that political faction. It is a threat to free discourse, to the ability to have an intellectual life, and to folks' actual livelihood. And it is certainly relevant to many people who visit this site or comment on this article.
The only connection to a particular political side was the work "against" in the first sentence. I regret that, and I have replaced it with "about". If, with that change, you feel that it is still possible to identify a particular political or ideological faction which is responsible for the danger I mentioned, that is not something I can control. I can only say that the boot may be on the other shoe someday, and I would still be speaking up against it.
As for the rule against using HN primarily for ideological battles, I was not aware of it, and I apologize. Would it be better if I started posting more technical comments as well?
Also, how does your interpretation of the rules affect users that use "throwaway" accounts? If a user makes a throwaway to talk about a controversial issue, that account may only have one post, meaning that 100% of its posts are controversial. Would that not prevent people from discussing controversial issues at all? Which, in the end, is the same as the advice I was offering.
Honestly surprised at how many people are posting comments about this. You know you'll end up on some list, right? Maybe you think it's ok to debate this kind of measure now, but the line will keep moving. In three years you may have people scouring your internet history for past wrongthink to deny you that promotion, or to get rid of you. In five years, machine learning algorithms may take your comments as input for your Ethical Credit Score. Hacker News is not going to delete your comments if you come to regret them.
It's best not to think about these things at all. What can you do, anyway? Suppress your mind's wandering. Focus on that algorithm on that refactoring, someone needs to get that work done, and it's you. You need that promotion. You need to make a lot of money for the federal government, for the state of California, and for your landlord, and you better make enough that there is something left to save. You don't want to look back in ten years and realize your youth disappeared while you were sitting in front of a monitor, you're still unmarried, you don't own a house, and you haven't had an independent thought in a decade, right? At least you've got to have some money saved up, that's going to make it worth it. So put your head down and get back to coding.
The impartial version "feels" impartial enough in tone, whereas the other two feel more openly partisan, the right one more than the left. But the story becomes more complicated when you look at the actual content.
Impartial version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Mentions that immigration is a central issue, but with no explanation.
- Quotes Kakabaveh from the Left party, at length. Mentions that she criticized Sweden's approach to integration, but with no details or explanation. Mentions threats on her by racists and fundamentalists.
- Is described as "impartial" at the bottom.
Left version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Only mention of immigration is that SD is anti-immigrant.
- Cites social democratic prime minister Löfven's criticism of SD.
- Is described as "positive" at the bottom.
Right version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Mentions that immigration and crime are top issues.
- Explains immigration and crime issues.
- Explains that SD "may not" be in the government.
- Cites SD leader Åkesson on broadening that party's appeal.
- Is described as "negative" at the bottom.
The left version goes into some detail on the workings of the Swedish parliamentary system, which are given a mere nod in the right version. On the other hand, the left version does not say anything at all about any issues with immigration in Sweden, while the right version goes into quite a bit of detail, and also discusses a crime issue, which is unmentioned elsewhere.
As for the impartial version, the content turns out to be basically the same as in the left version. Immigration is mentioned, but without any explanation of why it has become a political issue. And the politician cited is actually from the Left party, which sounds farther left than the Social-Democrat PM cited in the left version.
Violence, poverty and deprivation are the state of nature. The way all the evils of the world are laid at the feet of the West has no rational basis. The counterfactual against which West influence is compared is always a blissful utopia that never existed and never could have existed.
If you want to blame the refugees on what the West did, how about the fact that most of these people (most of whom are economic migrants, by the way) would literally not have existed without Western science and technology? Check out the population graphs, look at how many people the land could support before modern medicine, the green revolution etc.
Or so you would think, but as I recall her biggest detractors were SJWs complaining about how much skin she was showing. The whole idea of her being just a facade for some male engineer was driven by the feminist notion of "male gaze". By contrast, the "misogynistic nerd" crowd (Gamergaters and the like) were quite supportive of her.
> It seems unlikely that the connection between fines and large African American populations—a connection that cannot be explained by poverty—is the result of African Americans across the United States committing more finable offenses.
I'm not sure why that seems unlikely. African Americans commit a disproportionately large amount of violent crimes. It seems reasonable to expect that they also commit a larger amount of misdemeanors and minor infractions. It would be far more surprising if they had a higher propensity to break the law, but only when the violation is serious and the penalty heavy.
Yes, Jews are overrepresented in journalism, politics, finance and other highly impactful careers. Take the percentage of Jews in such a category, divide it by the percentage of Jews in the general population, and you get a number larger than one: that is just a numerical fact. The anecdotal version of this simple statistic is that you see a lot of Jewish names.
But that is not proof of any conspiracy or nefarious scheme: it is simply the result of the high value Jewish culture places on learning. I think we all see that.
However, when there is a similar, or even lower, rate of overrepresentation for other demographics in other categories, suddenly the conspiracy theory becomes common sense. Too many males in tech because of sexism. Too many whites amongst entrepreneurs because of racism. For lots of people, and an even larger share of the media, that is an obvious fact that requires no justification.
This is what I find unbearable: that the exact same statistical signal is obvious proof of evil with some categories, while to even suggest the same of others is beyond the pale. Even making this comparison is wrongthink in the eyes of some. And I want to make peace with it, but I cannot. The mind rebels. It will not bend.
And that is why, as much as I love the Jews, I find myself unable to muster any outrage over this extension, until the same outrage is afforded to other categories. Not even outrage: the same defense. The same presumption of innocence. Or at least, the same non-presumption of guilt. Can't we even have that?
As a H1B worker, I know I am depressing wages for Americans. Not just by increasing the labor supply, but also by having a weaker negotiation position than I would have as a citizen or as a permanent resident.
The "STEM shortage" is pure fantasy. The US should only take in the very best people, those who end up hired by top companies at competitive salaries, and give them permanent residency quickly. The people who come in with low salaries to replace American workers, like in the Disney case, should never have been given an H1B. That sort of abuse is going to end up bringing down the entire program.
Accusation of bigotry are just a means of controlling the conversation using taboos.
You're being dishonest here. Your choice of words paints a certain picture, but we all know what kind of people get people fired for their controversial opinions, and they wouldn't go after a self-described poc for talking about race. The example you give further down (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10859834) shows that you know how it works in practice, which is why I'm saying "dishonest" rather than "confused".
Thanks, I was not aware of that aspect of San Francisco's history. It does not seem to have much of a connection to the present situation, though - or maybe it does? The Democrats used to be the slavery party, after all.
Is there a good source for the political history of San Francisco that does not automatically take the point of view of the current incumbents?
San Francisco was only ever really tolerant of the right kind of differences, AFAICT. For example, it appears to be a near-complete political monoculture. It even has a prominent road in the largest city park named after a living and active Democratic politician, just to make sure everyone knows whose turf it is.
More recently, there is the animosity against the tech crowd, which I don't need to describe.
> He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw.
I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
I haven't seen much better logic from the other part.
It's not just a political view, they're taking away our rights!
If restricting the privileges of marriage to a group of people makes those left out "second class human beings", then the correct answer is to abolish marriage.
No, seriously. If this is truly a civil rights issue, then marriage itself (or, rather, its sanctioning by the state, with all the attendant privileges for married people and corresponding burdens on the community) is an inherently discriminatory institution. Fiscal benefits? Extended insurance? Visitation rights? Why should these privileges be enjoyed solely by married people?
You can just get married if you want to enjoy those benefits!
Yes, and gay people always had the option to marry someone of the opposite sex (in fact, many of them did). How is that a solution? Why am I required to be in a romantic/sexual relationship before I am granted my full rights?
If I am unmarried, why can't I name my cousin as a dependent for health insurance? Why can't I have my best friend immigrate to the US to be with me, instead of a spouse I don't have? What if I plan to be celibate all my life, but have strong platonic relationships? What if I am a polygamist?
The disestablishment of marriage should be the obvious conclusion to anyone who is truly approaching the issue with a concern for equality. The fact that nobody even seems to have considered it shows that, as usual, equality is just a buzzword, and this was really about a group advancing their own specific interests (and as long as they got what they wanted for themselves, screw everyone else). Which is ok, that's how politics usually works. But then, please drop the sanctimony and stop acting like you have the moral high ground. I am still paying higher taxes and getting less benefits because I do not conform to a state-sanctioned model of relationship, and you are my oppressor.
I agree that Greenspun's arguments are disappointingly weak.
I'd like to try to tackle your point 1, since I haven't seen people do that before. I should preface that I am indeed in favor of marriage equality, yet I think that it is incorrect to treat it as a human rights issue, or even an issue of equality before the law.
If you treat it as such, then marriage itself (or, rather, its sanctioning by the state, with all the attendant privileges for married people and corresponding burdens on the community) is an inherently discriminatory institution. Fiscal benefits? Extended insurance? Visitation rights? Why should these privileges be enjoyed solely by married people?
Countering that anyone who wants these benefits can get married is as obtuse as pointing out that homosexuals always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If I am unmarried, why can't I name my cousin as a dependent for health insurance? Why can't I have my best friend immigrate to the US to be with me, instead of a spouse I don't have? What if I plan to be celibate all my life, but have strong platonic relationships? What if, instead, I am a polygamist?
It's quite obvious that, if these are indeed civil rights, let alone human rights, then any individual citizen should be able to enjoy them; and those that necessarily involve more than one person should be applicable to any pairing (or group?) of a citizen's choosing. Why should people who are not in a romantic relationship be treated as second-class citizens?
If, instead, they are not human rights or civil rights, but privileges granted by the state because there is a public interest in encouraging and supporting marriage, then the question of how far and to whom these privileges should extend is a perfectly legitimate matter of debate.
"Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create them routinely. On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to."
I honestly think there's a good chance your decision in this case goes against the spirit of the rules, dang.