Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by WORMS_EAT_WORMS | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

WORMS_EAT_WORMS

> Controversial is by nature not a very clear category.

Not sure if it answers your question exactly, but here's the meat of it via their v1 to get a general idea:

- Cognitive Creationism Compared to Young-Earth Creationism

- Gender Muddle: Reply to Dembroff

- Deflating Byrne’s “Are Women Adult Human Females?”

- Black Pete, King Balthasar, and the New Orleans Zulus: Can Black Make-Up Traditions Ever Be Justified?

- A Puzzle about Self-Sacrificing Altruism

- In Defense of Direct Action

- Punishment and the Body

- Who Cares? ―The COVID-19 Pandemic, Global Heating and the Future of Humanity1

- Ultimate Meaning: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

- The Epistemology of No Platforming: Defending the Defense of Stupid Ideas on University Campuses

View on HN

I'm not going to bother to read the article because it's pointless, but I must admit I love the title: "Ultimate Meaning: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad"

That is a wonderful title. So good, you can put other things before the colon and it's just as fun:

Money: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

Sex: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

Happiness: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

The Truth: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

Good Paper Titles in Academia: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

It’s good enough to be submitted as a new Cards Against Humanity prompt.

You missed one. Privacy: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad

I read the article. Actually, it doesn't argue that reading the article is pointless - it says lots of things we do in life can have a point, but life itself can't have a point. It's a pretty good article!

https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/132/...

> Cognitive Creationism Compared to Young-Earth Creationism

I read (part of) this one to get an idea of the content of this journal. It has very little to do with creationism (despite the word showing up in the title twice). The idea seems to be, frame the idea of equality as an unexamined secular 'religion' of sorts, and then argue that scientists are unwilling to examine things because of it. The main example seems to be that mainstream scientists are unwilling to study whether race or ethnicity has any effect on the genetic component of intelligence.

This seems like quite a stretch, and I suspect the author just though they'd come up with a clever way of linking a dirty word (creationism) to scientists' preference to not carry water for racist groups.

Based on this sample, I don't think I'm particularly interested in exploring the rest of the journal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com