Comment by Brian_K_White | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brian_K_White | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Something unique may have been lost (a language, a clothing style, and a harsh way of life), but so much more has been gained (access to all the world has to offer)."

I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness: What does all the world have to offer? A spectrum of other cultures? Today yes, but only because the process of loss and homogenization you just said was a good thing has not yet completed. Give that same process a few more generations and the whole world will be the same, and any differences won't matter at all. It's already almost like that today. When I go on vacation on the other side of the world, it's hardly any different. If it weren't for the history and the interesting ancient structures, there would hardly be any point in travelling from any place to any other place.

The process is not complete, and so today, sure, there is still a lot of point to travel. But that is merely mass and inertia and it's eroding away.

Life is getting better in certain material ways, which are undeniably valuable, but it is not getting richer. It WAS getting richer for a while when communication and travel gave more people more access to the wide varied world than was possible before, but now, that wide varied world is becoming less varied, and so the richness is decreasing.

What place do entitlements play in preserving such diversity, and would other means perhaps play a better role? There are examples that indicate they might cause the opposite to occur, such as with casinos. What are the examples or arguments for how they help?

I made no statements or implications about entitlements.

>> are tribal entitlements necessary for the preservation of something worthwhile

> I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness

So I guess, your comment was non sequitur? I mean I assumed since the grandparent comment was about entitlements, and the parent comment about entitlements, that your response poking a hole in their argument about entitlements was also about entitlements.

I mean if you’re just saying “diversity is good” we can agree with that. But this whole thread stems from the Maine’s constitution entitlement rights for Wabanaki having been removed from print.

My comment was explained by itself. This question was a non-sequitur.

Do you perhaps fall on the aspergers spectrum? I realize I often make assumptions on how others mind’s work so I’m curious. I’ve heard that often conversations seem derailed when those on the spectrum pivot to subjects they are interested in versus a current topic. So it’d be helpful in identifying if that’s the case so I can understand other similar comments in the future.

I am not the one making any assumptions. There is no need to specially interpret my comment, since it was not terse and cryptic, it was wordy and explainatory. One must go actively out of their way to convert it into some unspoken meaning.

I could have reached for the same cheap "are you mentally abberrant?" but did not. That alone does in fact perversely make me aberrant I guess, in that it feels like the norm to do that when one can't figure out if they are actually right and if so how to articulate it. Attack the personality if you fail to attack the argument. Anything but admit you said something silly once you've said it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com