Hacker News Reader

Pre-2016, I might have agreed with you. We shouldn't be so strident. We should be more accepting. Today, yeah, fuck that. You take your +0.05 R and you reconsider your position. I'm fine with mine.

It sounds like you think that any statement of values expresses superiority. Is that correct?

Also, this is something you made up, not something anybody on the left has expressed, and especially not represented by that sign: “Advocating that 99.4% percent of people should just shut up and give 0.6% of people what they want is what I expect out of Peter Thiel, not the left.”

> not something anybody on the left has expressed

I very much agree with your larger point, but let's be real: Some do. There is a very small and vocal minority fascist-ish left, but this sign is in no way representative of it.

Houle said the left. He didn’t say small and very vocal minority.

Source: let’s be real.

My favorite source

> You can find people on Mastodon and Bluesky say the most terrible things about the 70% of people who have concerns about transgender athletes in women's sports.

I think if this was just an isolated position or opinion it'd be easier to have some charity and understanding. That doesn't seem to be the case.

A good example of this is the international chess federation banning trans women from women's competition. [1] What advantage does higher testosterone offer for someone playing chess? That's where these concerns seem to be more "I just don't want to accommodate trans women" and less "I'm concerned about an unfair advantage".

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194593562/chess-transgender-...

Chess is male-dominated from childhood onwards, and the women who do play are highly outnumbered by men. So women-only chess clubs and tournaments are a way to try to redress the balance by encouraging women and girls to play.

How does it benefit women to allow men who say they have womanly feelings into such spaces? It doesn't - and that's why they are excluded, along with all other men.

They are also penalizing trans men. How is that justified?

Women's chess is a protected category. On that basis, FIDE are stating that women who don't want to be women can opt out of that category if they so wish, but men who say they are women cannot opt into it.

They are talking about someone born with a vagina that identified as a man (a trans man) being banned from men's competitions.

Are you suggesting that men's competitions are protected?

I don't think that is correct. What FIDE is doing is taking away titles earned by people who are now trans men that they earned when they played as women.

In international chess there generally aren't any men's competitions. There are competitions that are restricted to women and competitions that have no sex or gender restriction.

How about 2 5-word signs?

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7...

In "reality", the tradeoffs aren't so stark.. (e.g. procrastination & distractions whilst on the path of "wisdom" are worth ~50 miles)

(Got that meme from other upforum sophists)

(Plus a sizable cohort of the lawnowners have an unshakeable faith in the dominance of their sense of humor over "reality" )

The political situation in the Americas, is imho, "just" the Monroe Doctrine reaping it's mimetic oats: US WASPs making their ancestral values the fount of honor in W Hemi => LatAm its political arrangements viable in the US via guerilla psyops (pop culture, Catholicism, etc etc).

Caricature: Bezos vs Thiel (note the swap of cultural affiliations)

Edit: just waking up.

> suggesting that the person with this lawn sign is superior in every way to people who disagree with her

Da fuq? No, it's a statement of beliefs (which I share). None of it is meant to belittle those that disagree, it's simply stating a belief system.

As opposed to calling Democrats DemonRats and implying that they're all evil and are destroying America?

"No human is illegal" are four well-chosen words that would be a meaningless truism except in opposition to the construct of "illegal alien."

If you thought "Science is Real" you might read something like

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/03/how-migration-...

and understand that the discourse of politically oriented folks about immigration is not at all evidence based. Tacking one cause to another cause tends to work terribly for progressive causes

The best critique of "Science is Real" is the Habermas classic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_Crisis_(book)

which points out a failure mode of our civilization in terms of reconciling expert knowledge, popular participation, and reality which remains unanswered.

I see what you're saying but the issues matter, as well as the delivery.

None of the slogans in that sign should be remotely controversial. Where exactly is the "complex issue"? "Water is life"? "Science is real"? This sign is statement that some issues warrant absolutism - a line in the sand regarding fundamental values. Such a line is an unavoidable feature of any moral framework. The specific values in question are what count.

The real moral fight is "you should care about others" vs "fuck you I got mine", and this is what distinguishes left from right, rather than propensity to nuance.

I upvoted you because I think your comment, while wrong, contributes to the discussion.