Hacker News Reader

Comment by ContrarianBrit | Hacker News Reader

Abstract: Denial of the existence of Coronavirus, a distinct position from respectable critiques of lockdowns and extensions of vaccine rollouts, might be dismissed as unreasonable. Notwithstanding this, arguments that right-populist attitudes are unreasonable have clear limits, failing to appreciate the functions of right-populist views. For example, opposition to immigration promotes continuity of local conditions, low-education voters valuing this. If we are to understand the appeal of right-populist positions and decide whether certain positions should be excluded from public debate, we must establish the limits of reasonable debate.

View on HN

> we must establish the limits of reasonable debate.

Not sure we need to do that for society as a whole. There's a difference between us, common people, and people with platforms, either private, or state-provided. These last two groups could be regulated, because misleading the public can have dire consequences to society.

I always suggest we should make lying or misrepresenting facts while representing a government (from school councils to president), should be considered a very serious criminal offence. Humanity cannot afford to have presidents who suggest drinking bleach may be a good idea or that COVID vaccines can turn you into an alligator. The only plausible excuse to lie for a government figure is national security, as misinformation can play a role that benefits society there.

The bleach story has been fact checked as false multiple times but I think you make an interesting point about accountability in govt. I don't think is realistic though. What should you do about things that are fluid? Should the current administration be held accountable for the "lies" they told about the vaccines and how they would prevent you from getting COVID? They represented them as facts.

They should be careful. In most cases, a “to the best of our knowledge” should be enough to shield a well-meaning government figure. If, however, if they know, or should have known (as in “they were informed otherwise”) the punishment should be harsh.

In the bleach case, I heard the full recording. While he doesn’t say people should drink bleach, he suggests it could be useful.

Please share the link to the full recording. I have never heard it.

Agreed. Public misrepresentation of facts is extremely serious. Positions such as COVID denial, creationism etc. shouldn't have public platforms.

Obviously everything would become a matter of national security, especially 4chan-threads.

Do politicians or members of the government regularly post on 4chan?

> I always suggest we should make lying or misrepresenting facts while representing a government (from school councils to president), should be considered a very serious criminal offence.

You mean like claiming that Trump advocated drinking bleach? That kind of lying or misrepresentation?

Was he being serious? Genuine question.

There is a commonly repeated claim that Trump advocated drinking bleach. He didn't.

He, in his customarily ambiguous way, kind of did. He was rambling that if it kills covid in walls and floors, then, maybe, if would kill it in people.

He did nothing of the sort.

He, as a layman, asked a medical expert about the possibility of some kind of injectable "disinfectant" (not bleach, specifically). While one might characterize that as naive, it's a long, long way from "Trump told people to drink bleach".

Was he ever serious?

No, because

1- i am not a president

2- he kind of did it

Immigration is beneficial for wealthier citizens. Depending on the demographic they do depress wages because expectations are simply lower. They also compete especially with people in low-income brackets. A rising GDP from immigration is trivial, it does not mean that it is beneficial for everyone in society. On the contrary, I think some economic predictions just fall very short here and that they might be correct about their reservations because they can see that they need to compete with more people.

If your local conditions are better than 95% of the globe, why would not promoting local condition be ever irrational?

> we must establish the limits of reasonable debate.

Who is "we", and why do they get to decide?

Society as a whole, represented by officials such as elected politicians.

I understand that things are different in Britain, but in this country "society as a whole" doesn't get to run roughshod over the free speech rights of individuals.

Of course not, society shouldn't be able to do this and constitutions should codify individual rights. But on the other hand, freedom of speech shouldn't cover public platforms for outright lies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com