Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nadya | Hacker News Reader

People are always so quick to jump to this line of reasoning when popular opinion agrees with them.

Would you be fine with losing your job for wrongthink if - or rather, when - social opinion swings the other way? It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong - you should be punished for disagreeing with society!

Societal retribution for "wrongthink" is not the right answer. It's how you end up with LGBT losing their jobs where it's "wrong" to be LGBT - because the actual wrongness/rightness doesn't matter, just that society doesn't agree with them and that it's okay for society to punish them for being "wrong".

View on HN

> wrongthink

This breaks the HN guideline against calling names in arguments, as well as the one that asks you to read other comments charitably (i.e. strongest plausible interpretation).

To drop a term like that in a comment here is not really engaging with the other commenter, just trying to make them or their argument look bad. That leads to much lower-quality discussion, so please resist the temptation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Being punished for being against whatever is socially trendy is aptly described as "wrongthink" regardless of what is "wrong" it's "the wrong thinking". In the 1920s, dating across racial lines was "wrongthink" and in the modern day that's flipped - along with many other progressive values. I subscribe absolutely no value to what this "wrongthink" is but merely used the term to describe being against social norms. I don't care what those social norms are and I do not care if I agree with them or not.

It isn't okay to punish someone on societies' whim for the same reason vigilante justice should be frowned upon and the same reason it isn't OK to punch a nazi in the face [0].

If we wake up tomorrow in a world where being racist is perfectly acceptable - should you be fired for not being racist? I'm not asking you to consider that a realistic possibility - I'm asking you to consider if it is okay.

There are better ways of tackling racism/sexism than taking away peoples' livelihoods (which is likely going to have an effect on making them hold their positions more extremely than it is to have them change their opinions).

[0] https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/jppmn4/we-asked-an-ethici...

Excellent point. The idea that someone should lose the job and livelihood because of a wrong doing is madness. The punishment should cause a behavior correction and not end of life. Such vengeful society we live in today!

Western society's concept of justice is largely focused on punitive retribution. A transformation to restorative action is needed here.

I've seen the distinction between "disagreement" and "being a dick" disappear.

I could phrase a hypothetical opinion two ways:

1) "I think abortion is wrong because I believe in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception."

2) "Anyone who is pro-abortion is a baby murder."

In the first, a viewpoint is stated in a respectful manner. You may agree or disagree, but the speaker wasn't deliberately demeaning or hostile. In the second, the same opinion was expressed, but in an overtly hostile way.

If we'd like a plural society in which many viewpoints are exchanged, we have to continually challenge ourselves not to conflate the two when hearing or responding to someone else.

And I get it -- it's not easy when one is passionate about something, even when one is willfully trying not to knee-jerk.

But if I either speak disrespectfully, or assume that someone else is being disrespectful regardless of their actual phrasing, then we all end up in the gutter.

I wait with 'bated breath for this reformation to apply in the case of the United States' unprecedentedly large general prison population.

And people are always so quick to falsely equivocate awful behavior and stuff like being pro-LGBT rights.

How is this post not in violation of this guideline?

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

It arguably is, but since you were the one who took this thread into an off-topic and deeper circle of hell, I'd appreciate it if you'd reread the guidelines too: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com