Hacker News Reader

   > you are blatantly promoting an agenda of censorship.

Private censorship? You bet!

   > You appear to stand against everything of value in the West

Come back to earth, please.

   > The Atlantic has a long number of articles promoting globalism
   > and the destruction of nation-states.

Good, I support that.

   > People all over the world are angry, and it is not their fault entirely

I've lived long enough to see how all this came to pass. People are angry at the wrong people and the wrong things.

It is an interesting train of thought on your behalf. Could you provide some more detail about what you have seen in your time?

And by the way, are you familiar with the writings of Richard Coudenhove Kalergi, Practical Idealism ?

http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical...

EDIT: care to explain the downvotes?

Sorry, we're done.

How are we done? If you are going to provide absolutist statements at least please show us your reasoning.

Please put line breaks between what you quote and your comment. Sometimes it's confusing to parse what you wrote vs what they wrote.

I'm curious, how does globalism benefit everyone, at all scales economically, equally?

Each state of the USA is large enough to be its own country. It doesn't work equally well for all states, but there is a high degree of freedom of movement, and free trade between states. If every state were indeed its own country, it seems unlikely there would only have been one war between them since 1861.

I’m curious: how do you reconcile your support of nation states on one hand and a “free market of ideas” on the other? Nation states are built on a foundation of one idea — ethnicity derived from geography, language and racial perceptions — towering over all other ideas as an unquestionable absolute that affords sovereignty to those deemed worthy of membership.

The greatest feature of the United States of America is that it was never a nation state.

> ethnicity derived from geography, language and racial perceptions

This cuts both ways. See what happens in states where the border does not respect these local realities, for example where you have sunni led by shia or the other way around. Or look at Africa where Western powers drew lines on maps without respecting ethnicity.

Nation state is one form of decentralization, letting people govern themselves how they want.

Though experiment: imagine that there was a single global state, with one set of laws and institutions. How do you think that would work out?

And furthermore, how do we collectively decide which laws and institutions are codified and which ones are not? How do we ensure that the life and dignity of a rural fisherman is supported to the same degree as an ivy-league educated programmer?

It is entirely possible. Consider how the United States have some of the best free speech laws in the world, and how that is now threatened with the control of the Internet being handed to the United Nations under Obama.

An overreaching organization without a face for accountability is prone to disaster, as recent decades have shown. As a curiosity, the United Nations have had a former Nazi at its head. This situation was only rectified thanks to the United States.

https://unbrigandage.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/nazi-at-the-un...

Please do not use HN for ideological battle. This site is for intellectual curiosity, and the two aren't compatible.

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

Where was the ideological battle? I was just pointing out an example.

We are in a nihilist low right now. I don't except that the United States will have any answers. This is because it is an 18th century experiment in governance. People are realizing that the experiment has run its course. I believe we will see a resurgence of 'guilds' for a lack of a better word (except in the United States that is stuck in an outdated experiment). Being a doctor or an engineer is almost an international designation now, their papers are accepted in many countries. International bodies of doctors and engineers will start to gain more power. Perhaps licensed bodies will demand a seat in parliament. For example all the doctors get to vote for a representative in parliament, amongst the reps whose seats are geographically based, engineers as well get one seat. This won't happen in the United States, but maybe one of the former eastern European Countries. The United States has shown that treating someone without education the same as someone with an education doesn't work.

The United States has shown that treating someone without education the same as someone with an education doesn't work.

Our problems aren't created by uneducated people, they're created by educated people who are taking advantage of uneducated people. Removing that step from the equation makes their job easier, not harder.

The question is who should be the ruling class Not the rich because they already have power. Not the uneducated because that won't turn out well. There are two groups; 1)The students that got a C in a technical course 2)Middle class people with more knowledge in culture than money

One problem wit the United States is that the technical professions have let themselves be so marginalized. The Deep Water Horizon disaster would not have happened if the engineers had as much power as the managers.

This is my point, the technical class in the United States doesn't realize it should have more political power. Scientists get kicked around too much.

Any new country should see what happened in the United States and give more power to its technical class. This would be more of a meritocracy.

Nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. He's suggesting moderation. There is a very significant difference.

The internet and Usenet did OK without moderation until Eternal September and the invention of SPAM, when internet culture started to die. RIP. Before that a new arrival was expected to figure out netiquette, and everyone else would behave accordingly.

Ever since then there has been an fairly steady slide. The arrival of astroturfing corporate and special interest groups, trolls, and platforms that assist the amplification of effect by actively seeking to avoid any moderation has just intensified things. Those places without moderation deviate to lowest common denominator with astounding speed. We've seen it time and time again, and as a result many sites have closed down their discussion areas entirely. See reddit subs with and without active heavy moderation. Moderating does not rule out anonymity, nor should it.

Without moderation commercial interests, political groups and trolls will ultimately ruin all locations that attempt to allow reasonable discussion as it is not in those group's interests to see a virtue in being virtuous.

The few places left where you can have reasonable discussions, including on controversial topics, are those that moderate hard. They don't censor.

It seems you are using "moderate" as a euphemism for "censor". The definitions are extremely similar. What do you see as being the key distinction between the two?

Not at all.

Moderation is keeping people on topic of the forum, killing spam, trolls and sockpuppets, removing abuse and so forth, and trying to keep things on the rails and civil. Including banning trouble makers. Rather like dang does around here. That's not censorship, it's attempting to avoid anarchy. Neither is limiting the range of topics the forum or platform wants. Standards and extent will vary depending on the aims of the site.

Censorship is suppressing a view, even if it follows the standards and allowed topics of the forum. Legal censorship is a little more complex as standards vary between countries.

Having a post removed because it's spam, abusive or is off-topic is not censorship, which was the point the GP was erroneously trying to make.

Creating an artificial system such as the ones which are today mainstream can have undesirable side-effects. What stops a group of indivudals (or bots for that matter) from injecting rule-breaking content into an otherwise-acceptable thread?

Soft-censorship and derailing is done on purpose to censor certain topics which go against the establishment status quo. Reddit is fertile with such examples. If someone is making a comment which does not bode well to those in power, it is common for the thread to be sunken with low-class behavior and baits in order to shut down valid discussion by forcing an emergence of rule-breaking content.

That is a far more greater threat.

How do you propose to mitigate that?

>trying to keep things on the rails and civil. Including banning trouble makers

That's exactly what censors say

I'm okay calling it either "moderation" or "private censorship." I prefer a world where businesses are explicit about who they are. "Welcome to Acme. If you support poisoning animals, this is the wrong place for you. Go to poisoninganimals.com where you're welcome, instead." I can tell you, if I ran a website and someone plastered a bunch of comments promoting pedophilia, I wouldn't want to be associated with that. Maybe it results in fewer sign-ups, but just hosting content like that is making a statement. Users pick up on it, and you wind up, not being a democratic website for everybody, but being a website slanted towards creeps.