Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

I'm an American who lives in Denmark, and I agree, but I'm not sure it is people getting offended less quickly in general, versus on specific subjects. There are plenty of ideas that Danes consider to be completely crazy, not really debatable in polite company. For example, suggesting that abortion should be illegal, which is a mainstream position in the USA, is such a crazy-far-right position in Denmark that you couldn't bring it up in a regular social setting. Also, suggesting that healthcare should be a purely private responsibility, not guaranteed by the state, would position you as quite far-right, with even many far-right people distancing themselves from the full extent of that position.

On the other hand, Danes can come across as rather crass about some subjects, especially race.

View on HN

I'm a Romanian.

> suggesting that abortion should be illegal, which is a mainstream position in the USA, is such a crazy-far-right position in Denmark

Personally I think Americans are spoiled.

In Romania under Ceausescu (so before 1989) abortions were illegal. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of women (in a country with a population of less than 19 millions) ended up doing illegal abortions under unhealthy, unsanitary conditions. Many of them had health issues because of that, thousands died or were prosecuted for it.

Many of the women that didn't manage to get an abortion, ended up with unwanted children. Conditions were tough as we were living with harsh austerity measures, many of these parents barely had enough money to put food on the table, many of these children grew up in families that didn't want them, many of these unwanted children were given up for adoption, filling the streets with beggars.

Abortions may be murder, but making them illegal is also murder.

If you are interested in what happens when abortions are made illegal, there's a good documentary movie about what happened in Romania. Search for "Copiii lui Ceausescu" (in translation "Ceausescu's Children")

The "face" of abortion that is presented by the anti-abortion crowd is that of the teenager that wants to have sex without care for the consequences. Think rich/middle-class white girl that just wants to 'live it up,' then get an abortion before going out clubbing again, or something. You've also got anti-abortion people that believe crap like, "it's impossible for a rape to impregnate a woman because her body physically prevents it." It's a weird form of cognitive dissonance/stupidity.

Perhaps you are not aware-- that is precisely the same situation as in the United States until Roe v. Wade in 1973. The phenomenon you're describing is pretty common knowledge in our left-wing political circles; on the right, it is deliberately ignored.

Uhm... no. This is factually incorrect. If it's "pretty common knowledge in [your] left-wing political circles", that's fairly pathetic. Roe v. Wade overrode state (and occasionally local)-level laws making abortion illegal, but it did not suddenly switch abortion from "illegal" to "legal" in the entire country. (How could that even happen... from a practical perspective?)

There were 193,491 legal abortions in the US in 1970. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state matter, and the lines were being drawn in fairly predictable ways based on the right/left state-makeup of the time.

Your point is well-taken, but I don't think it actually goes against what I'm saying. Abortion in the US was not Federally illegal, but it was illegal for many women and many women died for that. That ended when Roe established it as an affirmative right-- though perhaps not for good, as we're starting to see again entire states where legal abortions are simply not available.

I do appreciate the correction, though I'd have appreciated it more in a more constructive tone.

Sometimes I think that Romanians (and people who have lived under genuinely despotic regimes) are the only ones who really understand American politics.

I don't know if you are US citizen or from other American continent citizenship, but I, as a Frenchman, had the same impression, reverted, with fellow Quebequois boys. When we were casually talking between us about girls, they had a kind of transgression excitement that I did not understand. When asking, they told me they kinda weren't allowed to even think this way in their countries, let alone talking about it.

For me, it was just normal boytalk sharing personal preferences for small or big female body parts, for them it was as exciting as leaking out of school to smoke a cigarette.

I think it goes deeper than that. A remarkable well-documented(#) fact in the history of sexual life is that sexual perversions were much worse in places where sex was considered a sin (eg. the West), than in places were it was considered natural (eg. China).

I am really concerned that, after a while, the sexual PC pressure could backfire in North America. We all know how "Hell is paved", right?

(#) http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B00...

> I don't know if you are US citizen or from other American continent citizenship

LOL! Although the Western Hemisphere is a big place, and North and South America comprise a lot of countries, I can assure you, in standard English, and fair or not, "an American" === "a United States citizen".

You are correct, but there is no reason to be rude.

Interesting. As a Quebecois, I can attest to the fact that we often seem castrated on sexual subjects, and europeans are seen as more casual. Quebecois girls are often seen as "easy prey" to europeans, as they are not used to be around men who are being openly seductive. Before you gloat, though, we also hear horror stories of europeans (especially mediterraneans) who are unable to respect women, so I suppose there is probably a healthy middle-ground somewhere between the two.

As for sexual perversions being worse where sex is considered a sin, that makes a lot of sense. Japan would be a great example: genitals are censored, yet they make some of the weirdest most perverse porn one can think of.

For me, it was just normal boytalk sharing personal preferences for small or big female body parts, for them it was as exciting as leaking out of school to smoke a cigarette.

Thinking about it I'm regularly seeing kids aged 13 or 14 smoking cigarettes in front of their schools in Paris. French people have a special ability to free themself from the rules.

That's not necessarily a European view on abortion. Many countries in Europe are strongly catholic (Ireland, Spain, Italy come to mind), and in some cases, the religious views have affected the laws (read: Ireland). I'm Irish, and abortion is a hotly debated topic; The main people against legalising it are staunchly catholic groups and use this as their basis.

You're right in saying that the anti-abortion movement in Ireland correlates with catholicism, but I think the more staunchly catholic groups are fairly right-wing (not in an extreme, goose-stepping fascist sort of way, necessarily, but more in a Fine Gael sort of way). With that in mind, I think the data in Ireland supports the grandparent's claim that anti-abortion is a right wing movement in Europe.

I think perhaps the confusion here is due to the fact that the Irish don't see themselves as being divided according to the French tradition of left and right, but according to which side of the civil war they think was right.

It's perhaps instructive to note that the people and organisations that oppose abortion in Ireland today are often the same ones that supported Franco's rebellion during the Spanish civil war and that both things were supported for the same reason: catholicism. The Irish right wing has more in common with the right wing in the rest of Europe than it gets credit for.

> On the other hand, Danes can come across as rather crass about some subjects, especially race.

This is a very valuable piece of data!

Despite all that's great about PG's essay: Funny is not an oracle of universal good! Humor is wonderful. It's universal. It's tremendously important, but it does not make you right, and it is not license to do and say whatever you want.

Rationality is wonderful. It's universal and tremendously useful. But we all know that just because a human is applying rationality, that doesn't men she/he is necessarily right. Likewise, what tickles your own funny bone might not tickle someone else's. Humor and rationality are universal. Your own POV and your own application of those are human and flawed.

Funny is not an oracle for all that's good. Most of the time, humor is an orthogonal area of concern. It does not make one righteous, and it's very unlikely that someone failing to be funny gives one an excuse to be self-righteous.

> Also, suggesting that healthcare should be a purely private responsibility, not guaranteed by the state, would position you as quite far-right,

Well, obviously as this is an extreme far right position (I'm american living in Europe and I realize this...).

Of course, any position you do not agree with must be extreme. Reasonable people are called reasonable because they agree with your reference group.

No, you misunderstand. I never mentioned whether I was right wing or left wing. I was simply pointing out that the the position you mentioned is extreme right wing on the political spectrum. You imagined it to be centralist?

Yes, those would be considered extreme positions in much of Europe. Healthcare privatisation is pretty much a forbidden topic in politics because suggesting it would be political suicide. Nobody wants it.

And banning abortion is tantamount to signing the death warrant on hundreds of young, confused, scared women. So, yeah, these are considered extreme views, because they're extreme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com