Hacker News Reader

Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting people into questioning whether a spade is really a spade.

This. "Reality is a shared perception" works only for as long as reality is comfortable enough to indulge your misperception. You cannot wish yourself into having more money in your bank account, or out of an energy crisis. Reality will validate your perception, and if you fail that validation, you will be the one who will have to take the consequences for it.

So is a strawberry really a berry?

But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society

> the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity

Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.

Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share.

I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc.

You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.

I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.

Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts?

Trying to picture it now..

Klaxons sound

"Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"

If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion.

First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures.

So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted.

As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines.

Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important.

I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.

As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention

I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion.

Chapter 1, Article 1:

"A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0]

Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1].

The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote:

"2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2]

[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33...

[2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...

Sorry, yes. I was recalling it from memory and mixed the two up. My apologies. I meant the London Declaration.

You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels.

This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it.

Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0]

"A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations."

Chapter 1, Article 7: [1]

"In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there."

Chapter 1, Article 14: [2]

"The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade."

Chapter 1, Article 15: [3]

"Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time."

Chapter 1, Article 17: [4]

"Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective."

I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5]

Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone:

Chapter II, Article 37: [6]

"A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination."

So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were.

[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

[6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

You're shifting goal posts and muddying the waters. My original assertion is simple - treating food as contraband in the blockade is against several treaties Britain was signatory to at the time. You picked out several passages at near random than fell back with "as I said".

Your blank refusal to see this despite having the treaties in front of you - and despite many people during WWI noting it at the time - proves my point. It's more important to you to cling onto the myth that WWI was a battle between good and evil, than admit a democracy deliberately starved the civilian population of a monarchy even after they had laid down their arms.

Though the usual response to this is to point to German WWI war crimes, as if they then cancel out - so I suppose it's an improvement.

No, the seizure of contraband on the high seas and blockades are entirely separate things in terms of international law. You’re confusing the two. Blockades have always, up until fairly recent times, legally included the blocking of foodstuffs just as sieges did.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you could go and find an academic who specialises in this field and ask them. You’ll get the same answer.

Honestly, you’re arguing out of ignorance here on a topic you don’t understand. On top of that you’re attempting to assign to me simplistic motives, that I don’t hold, just because it would make your preconceptions fit better.

They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.

What are your favourite examples of this?

In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all.

In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".

FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible.

We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.

> We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.

We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity.

You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far.

My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too.

That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?

That's not what mere observation shows...

Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go...

Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.

> Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint

No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth.

Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever.

Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.

edit: nevermind, i misunderstood!

GP here. To be clear I wasn't trying to construct some narrative that we're all living in the matrix, and we're all mass deluded about everything.

Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.

i thought the parent jumped in with an insinuation that mainstream viewpoints are somehow always objective which would be weird, but i misunderstood

I think you've got it somewhat wrong. People need to agree on something foundational but they don't need to share all of the same views. Basically all that is needed is a starting point from which you can build. I disagree that most people want to be told what to think by authority, the number of people I've met where this is true after further probing is quite small and they generally have other problems that make them averse to educating themselves.

I think the mistake here is that we (as in everyone broadly) have a perception problem. We don't actually know what other people are thinking, we can only judge by the face they present to the world. So there is a public presentation and then private thoughts behind that. This results in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the safest option is to defect to the side of whoever the perceived authority is since that is the only obvious signal. That defection is not a change of heart though, it's just going along to get along. Once a better option presents itself that aligns with the internal beliefs that are still held firmly, the individual will switch.

From the outside this looks like a strongly imposed shared narrative is being effective at uniting people but what's actually happening is that you're simply cowing everyone into keeping their head down while resentment and discontent simmer under the surface. Just look at what's happening in China right now or Iran, seemingly out of no where you have protests and civil unrest. It's the same for any tightly controlled society, things appear ok until suddenly they aren't. Widespread disagreement and argument are actually signs of a healthy society where people feel free to speak their minds.

I don't think it's about "social harmony", nor is it controlled by "people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige".

It's a very self-serving. We tell ourselves pretty lies and avoid inconvenient truths constantly. Because doing otherwise has huge costs in terms of personal comfort, convenience, wealth, security and social standing. This becomes a group dynamic when we join social circles that maintain the same pretty lies and avoid the same inconvenient truths. And of course for this to work it has to be an unwritten, almost subconscious rule: Never express a thought or question a choice that will disturb the material and moral comfort of yourself or your social groups.

Here's a way to observe/test this (two parts): The next time you have moral doubt (e.g. Why do I feel uncomfortable that all of the people serving us are brown people?), listen to your conscience rather than silencing it. (If you never have moral doubts I'd say it's because you've become very good at silencing it.) The more you listen, the more you follow through with honesty and integrity, the more you'll find that you'll have to give up something comfortable or nice in your lifestyle.

Part two: Express moral questions about something your group does that, when examined honestly, actually goes against the groups purported values. Be prepared to lose friends.

> I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it.

I don't buy this. It isn't something that comes from a small group of people "with status" but is a collective tradition. The idea that a small group of people "with status" can just willy nilly describe what's "real" and what isn't is a fundamentally undemocratic way of seeing society

The idea that some people have a right to manufacture "reality" out of thin air comes from the same set of lies that propped up the Catholic church. Compare this the idea that each person has a unique relationship with God and doesn't need a priestly class to "mediate" the relationship

If the "social harmony" can't handle the light of day, then it is the one that will need to adjust

> To most normal, well adjusted people, threatening to tear down the social fabric of our shared reality is just plain disgusting.

There are multiple crises beating down at our door that threaten to change the status quo forever for everyone (inside the US and outside). I suppose they are disgusting, but they ARE coming.

Yeah, but you can suffer a crisis and still not acknowledge the reality of it or its causes just fine...

That's pretty much what MLK's famous words about the "white moderate" were about, so yes. Most people will prefer an unjust order over the chaos necessary to bring justice as long as the injustice doesn't personally affect them too much.

You call it reality, I call it the systems that define our society. Factual claims only serve to justify those systems. Someone who believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and sinful behavior stains the character and thus leads to other sinful behaviors, will not become a gay rights activist if you can find a study to debunk their factual claims about how homosexuality is detrimental in this or that scenario.

In other words, I think what you call "perception of reality" is really just another way to say a word that has long fallen out of use in polite conversation because the end of history was supposed to have overcome it: ideology.