Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nasrudith | Hacker News Reader

That is an awful lot of words for "people who don't agree with me are part of a vast conspiracy". Put aside the possibility that the reason elites disagree is because they know something that the author doesn't. Even if one disagrees with a prevailing philosophy or even if it is objectively wrong but the idea catches on doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

That a rant from the 70s sounds like one today says more about the source than it does the target really - given ongoing processes one would expect the complaints to differ more substantially as the changes either "succeed" and are embraced as the norm or "fail" and are discredited. I use quotes because it is a matter of perception more than if they are actually good ideas.

To be frank it seems to be pure projection of the "eauality feels like oppression to the privledged" sort.

View on HN

"It was largely a grassroots campaign. It was very deliberate, but also decentralized — with actors from different backgrounds and interests, concerned with different causes, working different institutional levers — learning from, and building upon, the work of one-another over time."

That... seems like about as far from a vast conspiracy as you can get whilst still describing a group of people with a common goal and set of beliefs.

Here is another statement which you can characterize as "people who don't agree with me are part of a vast conspiracy."

> Republicans have been making concerted efforts to stack US courts with conservative judges.

Accusing someone of promoting a conspiracy theory is to accuse someone of making creating an unfalsifiable story, which does not seem to be the case in either my example statement or the original post. Specifically, there are no claims that "evidence to the contrary is fabricated" or "lack of key evidence is due to deliberate suppression." Now it may be the case that the author would respond in this way when presented with contrary evidence, or when pressed for some key supporting evidence, but as it stands there is no cause to levy the "mere conspiracy theory" charge at the author.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c...

I’m not an American so I’m not directly involved in the US political process, but my question is why shouldn’t US Republicans appoint conservative judges? Why is this seen as a conspiracy? Isn’t this the reason why they were elected? Should they appoint liberal judges? But then what type of judges should the Democrats appoint? And in today’s political climate it doesn’t look like there’s truly a “neutral” judge, so to speak, one is either liberal or conservative.

The piece makes a scholarly argument and is written in scholarly language. It is neither a "conspiracy theory" nor a "rant".

You are using loaded rhetoric in an attempt to dismiss the piece without actually engaging with the ideas set forth in it.

And, of course, by brigading this down you are making the author's point for him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com