Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackworks | Hacker News Reader

Twitter has become a breeding ground for mobs and unjustified moral policing. I started following people based on the technical work they have done and was hoping to learn or get inspired them.

Apart from a very few, every accomplished technologist have started using Twitter and their followers to attack others. This is nothing but the witch hunt from medieval times done differently.

I have interacted with RMS in Emacs developer list, he has a strong opinion and nothing more, nothing less. He is not trying to create a mob and nor is he starting an upraising. If you have an opinion, voice it and leave it. Yes, I agree RMS needed a PR to tread the land mine ridden modern life.

Overall, it is sad to see RMS and his work getting trivialized for totally unrelated reasons.

View on HN

He was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.

Is that unrelated, trivial behavior that should be ignored?

This isn't a witch hunt, what he did was wildly inappropriate and the number of people defending his behavior because he's quirky and did great things is a little disgusting.

Yes, there have never been cases where young women have sought the company of older men in exchange for power and money. Never. The terms "gold digger" and "sugar daddy" were never invented for these kinds of exchanges.

As for 17, as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18, without them telling me or asking to look at their (hopefully non-forged) ID. If she lied (under coersion from Epstein), how could anyone have been able to tell?

You are describing sex work. Both of those are other terms for sex work. Which is fine once the sex workers are of age and haven’t been coerced, but neither of those was true here.

Not just sex workers - some women marry just for access to the money and power (and I'm sure some men do as well).

But the coercion is very true, and hence my explicit callout. The question becomes did Minsky know that? Did he have any reason to suspect it?

How would you know whether someone was coerced?

Would they tell you?

These women were sex trafficked.

You're absolutely correct. Hence my comment about coercion. Did Minsky know that? Did he have any reason to suspect it?

Come on now. What other plausible reason, besides being someone's daughter, would a girl that young have for being on that island with these old men? It doesn't take an MIT-calibre mind to ask this question.

Money. The same reason a girl that young (let's say 18) might work for a strip club. Or in Nevada as a prostitute. Or as an escort.

If money was involved, even if the clients were willing, it is considered a form of coercion under US law if the girls were under 18. The coercion label only seems to go away when they turn 18.

and Stallman argued that morally, this is nonsense -- the moral aspect does not care for country and jurisdiction.

Morality isn’t universal, in space or time. What was moral 2000 or 100 years ago is not today, same between the USA and Chad Africa.

If morality is relative, only the legal framework is something that we can evaluate. Laws are crafted from the relative morality in that jurisdiction.

Laws also have two components - the spirit and the letter of the law. You can violate the letter of the law (for example sodomy) without violating the spirit of the law (preventing a sex act the recipient views as degrading). And as a result, you aren't prosecuted. The flip side is also true - you can also violate the spirit of the law, and not the letter of the law, and be prosecuted.

Sodomy laws aren’t prosecuted because they are all considered unconstitutional, not because some spirit of the law isn’t being violated. In an ideal world, they would have been cleaned up along with other archaic laws still on the books.

Where moral comes from is dependent on a time and space. Where it is applied generally does not.

Ignoring those morals which are dependent on location, today's american applies the same set of morals against those on american soil as well as those on chinese soil.

They also apply those morals across time, such judgment on Ancient Greek behavior.

In the same fashion, we do not alter our moral judgement based on the jurisdiction the event takes place in. At least, we do not do so naturally, without additional effort. If this occurred in the open seas, would we hold our tongue? In a country where no such laws exist?

Legality is also hardly a strict mapping of morals to rules, with complete coverage of what we're trying to express -- if it were, there would be no need for judges; we could simply feed the evidence into an algorithm and spit out the result. And the arbitrary flip from legal to illegal, by virtue of a day, is hardly the concept we're trying to morally express through the law. But for practicality, a strict deadline was given.

Hell, what's your argument? That because morals are relative, there cannot be any discussion of it? Morality precedes the law; You don't make a moral judgement by referring to the law.

My point is that morality actually has a jurisdiction. It isn’t as well defined as legal jurisdiction, but it does exist.

China is a great example where the morals are very different. Barring a few extra territorial laws (corruption, child prostitution for Americans), the jurisdictions are disjoint.

Again, the provenance of a particular morality is bounded by space and time, but the application of it is not; the american judges the chinese with the american morality, irrespective of what chinese society might say.

It is valid, and normal, to discuss morality of actions occurring in different places, without including the morality of that place itself; in this case, stallman isn’t talking about the remote island’s morals, but the morals of where he is and how it applies to events elsewhere

as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18

I suggest you turn down any offers from billionaire convicted sex traffickers to go to their private island and meet young women then.

To be honest, you should probably turn down that sort of offer even if you're really good at telling how old people are.

If I'm invited to a private island by a billionaire and offered a prostitute, and she confirms that she's 18 or older and here of her own free will, well, I imagine most unattached people would have trouble saying no in those circumstances.

For me, it would be too much like romancing my nieces, so I doubt I would take up the offer. In 30 years, who knows.

she confirms that she's 18 or older and here of her own free will

The crux of Stallman's argument is that in that case you would be unable to tell if the woman was lying because Epstein would have coerced her. You can't trust what she says.

However, where you and Stallman differ is that you're suggesting is that Minsky probably said yes and did sleep with the woman, and therefore broke the law.

And probably shouldn't/wouldn't be charged since he was criminally mislead in the process of doing due diligence.

And he shouldn't even be held morally wrong in this case either, if we assume that he did his due diligence and had what he viewed to be legal and consensual sex.

It would help a lot of you stopped projecting your own feelings on the subject onto Minsky.

I'm human. I can't be unbiased. This witch hunt of Stallman for rationally exploring "what if" scenarios makes me upset.

I don't know Minsky, I don't care about Minsky. All I'm really trying to do is re-inforce how and why Stallman's exploration is reasonable and rational. And, since it's brought up repeatedly in this exploration, why even the courts consider the spirit of the law alongside the letter of the law.

Stallman made a huge mistake: he forgot that he too is biased. Just like Lessig's defense of Ito damaged Ito and Lessig more than if Lessig had just STFU Stallman did the same for Minsky.

And Stallman being his usual amicable self he managed to do so in a way that a reaction was inevitable. If he wanted to do right by his friend he should have pointed out the flaws in the accusation, not to try to find some contorted way to argue that assuming it was true his friend should have walked without consequences.

Lessig falls into exactly the same trap, the fact that it is your friend who does something stupid or despicable does not make it any less so and in cases like that your friends would be better friends if they pointed this out to you. Preferably at a time that it would still make a difference.

Minsky may not be guilty of anything, and Stallman has shifted the debate over whether what he assumes Minsky has done should be legal or not (it shouldn't, let's be 100% clear on that) over whether or not it happened in the first place. And that is not helping at all.

It being smarter for him to STFU doesn't make the witch hunt any more justified.

Stallman has pissed off enough people and has been misogynist and creepy to too many people to get away with such stuff, he only has himself to blame. As for Minsky, if you have to rely on your creepy friends to come to your posthumous aid then it would be better if those friends kept to themselves. Minsky does not need this kind of defense. Stallman's misguided crappy little piece got tons more airtime than the statement by AN EYEWITNESS that the whole thing did not happen. As a result Minsky is now forever tainted as though this is an established fact when in fact it is anything but.

And probably shouldn't/wouldn't be charged since he was criminally mislead in the process of doing due diligence.

Rape is a crime that carries strict liability (under US law); ignorance is not a valid defence.

There’s a significant difference between willful ignorance and being mislead. The law accounts for this is most cases.

Here's some free life advice. If you're 40, and wish to retain the respect of your peers, both are off-limits.

I appreciate the wholly subjective and wholly unasked for advice. I'll be sure to give it the same weight as advice given by Hugh Heffner.

I've stated elsewhere I wouldn't be interested, but (not speaking of the Epstein/Minsky debate for a moment) who am I to judge someone for their consensual activities?

>As for 17, as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18, without them telling me or asking to look at their (hopefully non-forged) ID. If she lied (under coersion from Epstein), how could anyone have been able to tell?

I've seen this same argument like 4-5 times now in this thread.

I agree, being able to tell the difference between 17 and 18 is difficult, however a line must be drawn and it seems that 18 is that line.

If a girl is 18 years and 1 day old, vs a girl who is 17 and 364, is there a big difference? No, however that is where society has drawn this line.

If you use the argument 18 looks like 17, then eventually people may say 17 looks like 16, 16 looks like 15 etc and is a slippery slope.

Also chances are the girls in question were most likely sex trafficked (Modern day slave trade by another name).

As I've replied to peer comments, if Minsky couldn't rely on his eyes to judge her age, and she says she's 18 (and let's assume a scumlord billionare had the ability to provide falsified documentation backing it up, if he was really there to get leverage over his peers), how is someone to know differently?

It's quite rare that someone who did due dilligance and were criminally mislead to are charged for the crime.

> Also chances are the girls in question were most likely sex trafficked (Modern day slave trade by another name).

The women in question (those in contact with Epstein) were, in no way, a representation of chattel slavery, which is (i presume) what you mean by "modern day slave trade". They were neither 'owned' nor 'inheritable', they were also (by all reports) paid. Slaves are not paid.

The phrase "Modern Day Slave Trade" as it refers to sex work denigrates those who were forced into slavery by men with guns, as well as the subset of women and men who chose to participate in the sex work economy willingly, whether full-time or on-the-side.

Not really tech related, but... is there an age limit now on men and women having sex? Just trying to gauge the lines being drawn in this age of moral relativity.

There is a standard creepiness rule of thumb of half the older parties age plus 7 being the minimum:

https://xkcd.com/314/

I think there are 3 main rules in society:

1. As long as women or men are adult deemed by society (for example: 18 years old), anything is fine, even if 18 year old woman paired with 74 year old man. Age of consent rule.

2. A man should not date a woman younger than his age / 2 + 7. So a 74 year old can only date the youngest woman with 44 years age. Creepiness rule.

3. A man should not date a woman younger than 25 year old because the brain is not fully formed until 25 years age. Unless the man is more or less 25 year old himself. So a 74 year old man can only date the youngest woman with 25 years age. Brain fully formed rule.

Of course there are edgy case rule. We call it Romeo-Juliet rule (no more than 4 years difference). 16 year old woman should not pair with 74 year old man but if the man is 18 year old, that should be fine.

Welp, I guess I got raped (or maybe "creeped"?) a lot when I was younger? As a guy in my 20-21 I had sex with a lady in her early 60s.

If someone had told me that we'd be violating this ridiculous American "creepiness" rules of yours, I'd have missed out on a lot of fun.

And why on earth can you not defend a friend whom you think is wrongfully accused of a crime? Since when is that wrong?

I've seen many patently stupid things coming from the US lately, but this is certainly the most idiotic US witch hunt I've ever witnessed in my life.

While I resent most these attacks, the "I'm only here for the tech" stand, many tech-people have, deeply disgusts me.

Edit:

I'm not saying the work of a person can't be good if he did bad things.

I think it's important not to glorify people.

Free software is important for all of us, but so is a stand against sexsim or the likes.

Are you saying it disgusts you when they choose to keep their political opinions private? How come?

Because to them, everything IS political.

Because only certain people are in a position to be able to keep their political opinions private. For many people, the very fact of their life is inherently a political statement. So the "keep political opinions private" crowd is merely the people who can keep their opinions private telling everyone else to clear out.

They don't.

The want of keeping tech and politics appart is a political choice in itself.

Why are you here?

When I started on HN ten years ago, it was only about tech & professional growth. Only in the last few years have the politics and outrage taken over this forum and it “deeply disgusts me.”

It's okay if you want to stick at nothing, but you have to live with the fact that some people resent you fo it.

HN was much smaller and more homogenous 10 years ago.

Just curious, why? For example, if one wants to enjoy Picasso's paintings without getting bothered about how he treated people in his life, it is their choice, isn't it? If someone wants to concentrate only on the tech and ignore the rest, that is also their choice, isn't it?

Not saying one view is better or worse than the other. Simply pointing out people choose to get involved at different levels...

I personally try to avoid art from pedophiles and murderer and rapists.

I argue that art always happens in context and one context is who did it. Appreating art from someone who is clearly hurting others can't have done something so important to me to still enjoy it.

If a case is made which has some very rare and difficult scenario I'm not sure what I would do.

You should never come to Rome then...

Probably Greece too, or any other ancient place.

> I personally try to avoid art from pedophiles and murderer

Guess you avoid Caravaggio too, then.

Sooo you mean Michelangelo right?

At least on Wikipedia there it is stated that there is no proper source.

Also I try to. If it is very significant part of history I would try to be aware of it and still have a look.

I'm also very unsure about Alice in wonderland for the same reason.

But at least it's not someone still alive which would benefit from his/her art and being pedo right?

I hope you're also avoiding any sort of medical treatment pioneered by people with questionable histories. Or any medical treatment derived from research pioneered by people with questionable histories.

That would be problematic.

This decision was made by others. I'm not in a position to research the history of alledical procedures.

It is much easier for me to avoid art though.

"It is much easier for me to avoid art though."

Pretty much sums it up doesn't it.

What about non-art?

Do yo actively avoid using technology invented or heavily influenced by problematic people?

Do you have a proper relevant example?

I don't have a proper example.

I don't have the same reservations about using the work of problematic people, so I don't typically check for that info.

Off the top of my head, an example might be accepting opiods to manage pain, despite the tons of damage pushing the drugs has caused Americans as a whole.

But why you decided to put a line on a person? The surroundings, the social situation, the political situation, the nature, whole universe is a context of everything.

What are your thoughts on the philosophy of Ghandi? A man who tested his devoutness by sleeping next to a 12 year old girl.

I know not much about him and would need to read up on him to make a proper thought.

Not sure why I would do that. Ghandi doesn't really affect s my life

Is art necessarily about enjoyment? Should we not try to understand, if only to try an prevent it in the future?

I think theres a debate to be had over whether they should profit from those actions though.

Also keep in mind that Homosexuality was put in the same box as paedophilia and rape ( probably worse than rape). Social mores change, and are different from country to country. The girl involved was 17 as I understand it, which would be over the age of consent in my country.

Sex trafficking was involved, so the age of consent is legally higher.

Again in my country (UK) the age of consent doesn't vary, sex trafficking is illegal in its own right. So this still wouldn't be paedophilia, rather it would be rape.

My point is I could have consensual sex with a 17 year old, paint a picture and the GP would be happy to view it(?). You could have sex with a 17 year old, get arrested for paedophilia, paint a picture, and the GP would not be happy viewing it. Theres a legal line and a moral line both can change so its weird getting absolutist about it.

To be clear I wasn't aware of the sex trafficking element, I thought this was a question of statutory rape, which would seem to yield very different legal answers based on location.

Edit: 'Interestingly' I seemed to have circled around to making the same point RMS made. Except I'm not denying the rape, and I'm not a representative for another organisation.

The same is true in the USA, sex trafficking is always illegal, but the additional charge of rape will be added if the provider is under 18. Think of it as an add-on that makes the crime worse.

This whole thread has gotten side tracked on statutory rape, when in reality the criminal charges hinge on sex trafficking with age only as a modifier.

I think it's pretty disingenuous to equate how political paintings are to how political technology is.

Have a look at your local paper's political cartoon, and tell me how apolitical art is.

The you don’t understand art nor technology :(

We are still enjoying Stallman’s software, right? I cant imagine we’re going to eradicate gcc and Emacs from mainstream development.

Sorry, but I do strongly believe in this. The work stands apart from the man.

As a kid, I loved Lord Byron's poetry. Later, disgusted at his personality, I stopped reading his works. Still later, now I realise that flawed human beings can create beautiful works. Such is life.

It's okay to acknowledge good work but it's also important to see when brilliant people do wrong and not go all "but look at his good work".

Yea buuuut that's not even what's happening here. People are wildly misrepresenting stallman's position. To me it just seems like a certain subset of neurotypical people discriminating against people who don't see the world through 15 layers of social obfuscation/are actually honest about what they are thinking.

Did they really?

My interpretation:

You think people are criticizing Stallman because you think they misread his statement (She wanted it anyway)

I think people are criticizing Stallman because he believed Minsky was tricked (She didn't want but people made here act like it), which sounds dubious to me.

Firstly, I'm not sure how to parse your grammar,

secondly, it's hilarious that it seems you are now assuming that I am claiming that "she wanted it". This just goes to show you are here for blood and not justice.

thirdly, what stallman said: The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way,” Stallman wrote in the email, “but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.” and to paraphrase "It seems probable that she presented herself as entirely willing and that minsky did not know she was underage"

lastly, as far as I can tell, in the deposition it's not clear that they did have sex, only that she went to the island for the purpose of having sex with minsky under orders from epstein, presumably as part of his blackmail/entrapment scheme

Similar thing happened with me and Michael Jackson's music. I was on an irc channel when someone mentioned one of his songs and I agreed. One of my closer friends said, "you know he's a pedo, right?"

And I started thinking of the kids Michael had sharing his bed and realized that, until then, I had had sympathy for them only in an abstract. Now I think about those kids whenever one of his songs comes on, and you know, I no longer enjoy listening to it.

A bit of a difference here, Minsky was accused of having sex with a what he thought was a 17 year old prostitute. If you go to a brothel and things seem legit, how much are you going to question what's going on. That's like going to a restaurant and demanding to know if they've illegally hired staff before you sit down for dinner.

If you have reason to believe that, why not?

For one, if a person of sufficient status in silicon valley inquired as to the immigration status of the kitchen staff helping to serve their $1000 meal, and it became public, they would likely be open to the very same type of media slander / twitter mob whirlwind that we are seeing in this RMS situation.

In the 1980s so many films stared teens, as a generation was growing up. We were barraged with moral panics that decried sex. The same is happening again, with another young generation growing up. They haven't grown up yet to realize that some people sell sex, that others steal without repent, and that everyone is complex. They haven't realized that not everyone holds their ideals.

"that others steal (sex) without repent" do you mean rape?

Oh the horrors if people growing up think that rape is reprehensible.

I think it is a reaction to the politicization of society. A lot of people recognize that there is a polarization of society, but they don't want to become involved in a culture war or war of words, so they try to maintain their hobby as a neutral zone. That is a good thing. It is trying to find a way to work together with others who have differing views without letting it get in the way of "being friends" with them in furthering a good cause. You don't have to support the red team, or the blue team, you can just support the tech team and work with very different people without letting that get in the way.

"Child sex trafficking: good or bad?" isn't political, or really an opinion.

Did you read the original email Stallman sent? Please enlighten me as to how he in any way insinuates child sex trafficking is good.

Can you please share the link to original email?

https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

From the article:

"The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."

Is it bad enough to ensure all encryption has a backdoor so that government can combat it?

I say yes and that it isn't even an opinion. If you disagree with me, you are helping defend such abhorrent behavior. You wouldn't do that, would you?

Did RMS did anything like that? From my quick search it seems he just defended by email a dead professor that had sex with a 17 year old. Forced or not, that's hardly what could be called a child, as it's a few years older than the age of consent in most of the Western world.

Society IS political by its very definition. When you live and act in a society, you're taking a political part, because politics is just how society decides its rules.

What I find deeply ironic is that you probably only have a frame of belief that finds a politically neutral frame of engagement with tech 'deeply disgusting' precisely because of the tech that was created under that neutral rubric - tech that probably would never have been created under a more politically engaged rubric...

Why? Because such neutrality allowed the creation of a space where people could express anything to everyone at a cost that was practically free. If the creators had been more politically engaged - that never would have happened. It would have been locked down from the start.

Now - if you go looking for it - you'll find studies that observe what happens when human group sizes increase. More "punisher" type personalities emerge, applying greater social costs on expression in an attempt to enforce hegemony. I would cite - but feeling lazy.

In response to the ever increasing social costs imposed by such punishers - the ones who created the free for all in the first place, turn more desperately to their stated neutrality... largely as a means to avoid punishment.

The punisher types won't accept this - because they want to root out dissenters hiding in their neutrality... so begin punishing those who don't proactively state their right minded political stances in every space. They apply such punishment for example - by statements of "deep disgust"... as though this hyperbolic reaction is not hyperbole at all; as though the mere act of not engaging is the worst of moral failings.

I would be terrified of such people... I would be terrified of you - if it weren't for the aforementioned irony with which I opened. You just do it cause game theoretically you are predicted to do so - because of the system brought into being by exactly the sort of people you hate.

We deserve you.

Kinda like how the AI in the Matrix deserve the mathematical anomaly called Neo. They can't get rid of it. But they created it... This thing that wars against them, under the heroic illusion of its own agency and righteous purpose.

I don't know if you're right or wrong.

I have the feeling the state of mind wasn't really neutral in the past, so there wasn't a neutral time that created all this.

There was much more gate-keeping going on in the past. I think this cost us much more innovation and new technology.

My impression is as following:

I don't think we move from non-political to political and from "free for all" to "only the good are allowed".

We are moving from one political strucuture that prevented some kind of people to cobtribute to another.

I'm not sure if this will yield better results, but I certainly hope so.

Also, I think the good tech/ideas of the past shoudn't be thrown away, because if we throw them away the people who created them did bad stuff to other people, the victims did suffer in vain.

But we should strife for creating things in the future with less suffering.

Free software is a political movement. It is impossible for it, or Stallman’s active alienation of women and decent people over a period of decades, to be apolitical. He was a purposefully political actor.

Especially because if you really believe in just here for the tech and also believe that ideas should stand alone all of this shit should be penned by a pusedonym.

>While I resent most these attacks, the "I'm only here for the tech" stand, many tech-people have, deeply disgusts me.

Is it surprising? How many people here work for horrible companies, and justify it to themselves by simply following directions? In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle.

Disgusting, yes.

>In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle.

There's nothing disgusting about this, assuming that the wrong-doings are really bad and this would all go public. Society does not treat whistleblowers well. They generally lose their livelihoods when they go public with what they know. So yes, they should be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings, because they're usually ending their careers when they do this. If society isn't willing to stop ruining their careers when they "do the right thing", then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.

I'll never understand how an individual can be so weak as to commit crimes because they were "told" to.

>then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.

A tad over dramatic. We aren't talking about Snowden here; hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things. They aren't going to be blacklisted for spilling the beans on Facebook. In fact, in this political climate they might even benefit greatly.

If you're willing to harm other people in order to avoid potential harm to yourself, it's disgusting, and no amount of "but what about me?" will convince me otherwise.

I never said anything about committing crimes. I'm just talking about people working at these companies. You really think that every single person working at Facebook is a criminal? You have issues.

Do you also think every single person working at an oil company is a criminal too, or should quit or else be morally wrong in your view?

>hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things.

Just about every company in America does morally ambiguous things.

One of the problems of cancel culture is #everyonedoesit. At some point, all of us have niche issues where we feel powerless in our individual lives, yet feel empowered when the mob goes up against individual X for something we care about. I'm convinced at this point everyone indeed does it, from the right to the left and so on. People treat it as a weapon reserved for those they hate and unfairness when applied to themselves or people they like. I'm not sure what the answer is, more empathy might help, but part of me feels like with everything else going on all of it stems from a deeper disintegration in US society where people feel like they've lost control of their own lives. These are just symptoms of that.

To further your point, Trump and Brexit are also symptoms of the same issue. I do not think 48:52 was a coincidence at all, the entire western world has been cut in half it feels. Worrying times.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but I too feel like they are symptoms, and the longer people take to pick up on that the longer it will take to fix things, if at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com