Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewclunn | Hacker News Reader

Are they equivalent though? If all companies that are "neutral" eventually become corrupted by subversive influence, then the only immunization is to be actively opposed to it. Which "side" as aggressively pushing their BS on you, and which one is being open about its motivations and building new things rather than attempting to corrupt existing things? These two "sides" are not the same. It's politically expedient to claim to be aloof, or beyond the partisan bickering, but more and more people are coming to the conclusion that there's no ability to avoid the conflict.

EDIT - While writing this comment the article story got flagged. Who is trying to make sure you can't see stories like this? Eventually a "side" must be taken because one of those sides is determined to not allow you to decide for yourself.

View on HN

Which side is which?

"one of those sides is determined to not allow you to decide for yourself." Is this the side where elected officials block construction projects of a company because they don't like the speech expressed through their publications or is this the side where some students prevent non-conforming speakers to speak on campus and teachers get fired for reading a quote in a historical context that includes the N-word?

The "two sides" in the false dichotomy are definitely not equivalent. That said, I don't really buy the idea that it simply must be this way, either. Corporations will always be corrupt to some degree, and I don't think that this really plays into that very much; I think that most corporations are very happy (and actively engaged in) doing one thing and saying another. So the truth is, the only positive externality that I think could come from all of this posturing is if it helped in shifting the societal view (And to an extent, it probably did, though I think eventually, if it hasn't happened already, that trend will go backwards.)

I also don't really understand why this article is flagged; I think a lot of articles where the discussion is bound to go sideways get flagged just in anticipation.

Corporate America hasn't been "corrupted" by social concern politics. Rather, the social mores of the US have moved on. A corporation advertising with a rainbow flag has the same value-free profit-seeking connotations as advertising with an American flag in the 1980's.

What has actually changed is that the right wing has anchored their viewpoints to the social mores of the 1950's, making them no longer conservative but rather reactionary (as laid out by Moldbug himself). From that perspective, every day regular society ends up seeming increasingly hostile. What has happened is that they've moved into the position of activists. And like many newly minted activists, rather than doing the slow work of convincing others of the value of their beliefs, they're merely asserting things should be a certain way and then playing the victim when they aren't.

> "Who is trying to make sure you can't see stories like this?"

The side that has read the HN guidelines (linked at the bottom of the page) and knows that politics stories are explicitly declared to be off topic for HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com