Comment by MCRed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MCRed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunition to a substantial discussion. IF HN is a filter bubble, where only politically correct perspectives are tolerated, then my post will fade into nothingness as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking. Why should I invest time in a community if only certain thoughts are tolerated by that community?

Oh, and this whole idea of "thought crime" is a mechanism by which prejudice is fostered and spread-- you saw it in Germany, Orwell wrote about it. We have it in action here in the USA... and on this site.

Surely you know where this will lead. In fact, anecdotally it already looks like this site has lost %80 of its participation... it used to be you needed hundreds of uproots to get to the front page, now only 10 will do it.

> as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking

I love this sort of "If I lose, I called it, so I'm actually right!" hedging.

The implication is, of course, that rather than you perhaps being wrong, that your unpopular opinion is actually 'critical thinking' and your opponents are all incapable of it.

Oh, I could be wrong, and if that were the case, people would have arguments that point out the errors in my thinking.

However, consistently, on Hacker News, and among leftists, instead of making arguments that refute my arguments with logic, facts or reason, they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

Since you can't argue to the point and you did argue to the person, and you downvoted to try and silence my opinion-- yes, I think it's a slam dunk that it's an inability to engage in critical thinking.

Also, I have been on this site since around 2007, and so I have many years of experience to draw from... the left teaches anti-intellectualism as much, or more, than the religious right, and it is pervasive on this site.

That you smugly said what you did above is proof positive of it. But you'll never see it, because you've been trained to be unable to see it.

> they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

You are being a hypocrite. By saying "downvoters aren't critically thinking", you are attacking people who haven't even responded yet. You're setting up a pre-response trigger. It's an immature, adolescent way to debate. If you were a good at critical thinking as you say you are, you'd see that and understand why.

> you downvoted to try and silence my opinion

Are you psychic? HN doesn't provide a mechanism to see the modders, up or down, and I usually don't downmod and respond, myself. I do one or the other. So much for your 'slam dunk'.

> That you smugly said what you did

You really aren't above this 'personal attack' thing, you know. I actually attacked what you were saying, not you personally, pointing out your hedging. Even if you took it as 'personal attack', that you chide me for doing so, then do it yourself? Hypocrisy.

Your 'critical thinking' is rife with errors, so your pre-response strike against people who disagree with you is entirely unwarranted, and a very non-critical-thinking way to conduct your argument.

More name calling, no argument. Plus you also lied about what I said, which shows you feel you need to deny reality, which means you know you're being anti-intellectual.

Thanks for proving my point.

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

Facing disadvantages and being persecuted are differences of a significant magnitude.

Besides, we're currently in the middle of several moral panics. Most of them come and go, but it feels like things are really bad when you're in the midst of them.

>facing disadvantages v. being persecuted

Seems like a distinction stemming from perspective. Are women persecuted or do the face disadvantages in the workplace?

Firstly, we must draw an important subtle distinction between oppression and persecution. Oppression implies a deliberate and prolonged attack on a group's rights, whereas persecution implies some active vendetta against a group on top of that, beyond merely enforcing the oppressed status.

As for your question, that strongly depends on which jurisdiction we're talking about. Where the United States is concerned, I would say the latter is true, but not the former.

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me".

Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group.

To imply so is disingenuous.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead, you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted. My question still stands.

Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs of any flavor are a mental illness.

Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownership of guns as a check/balance on the central government. I accept the gun deaths that accompany ownership (accidents, suicide, murders) as I believe the benefit far out ways the cost. I believe this because of what I have seen in countries where there are severe limitations on personal gun ownership. For me it comes down to this: when weapons enter the equation, you are either a Player or you are Furniture. I choose to be a Player.

Fourth and finally, I believe in complete free speech, no exceptions, and as such I in no way wish to limit you, or any person's expression. Still, any time people choose to scoff instead of respond, I can't help but feel they need to return to their seat and pay better attention in class before raising their hands.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered.

I did below.

I've both bought a gun and gotten married. It definitely took much more government paperwork and time to buy the gun.

However, I'm not sure the bureaucracy surrounding either really comes close to "persecution".

Buying a gun really only requires filling out a tiny slip, it took me less than 5 minutes and was not invasive in the least. Maybe this varies between states.

Does that tiny slip get filed somewhere, indexed and archived, triggering an invisible trawl through your personal record? Maybe it's the behind-the-scenes stuff that has gun enthusiasts worried.

Getting married certainly does end up getting filed somewhere, etc. It's part of the public record. So does having a child, or buying a house. Advertisers pay good money to figure out who new parents are. Voters are also registered, as are drivers.

Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?

Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?

I suppose it depends on what threats you consider realistic.

Well, you brought it up as something "that [might have] gun enthusiasts worried." Why do you think they consider it realistic enough to mention?

Is it because they don't know just how much data mining governments and companies do to us, and prefer to limit themselves to issues that might reduce their enthusiasm?

In which case it's not really a meaningful objection, since it's true of nearly every hobby. I'm sure that back in the early 1900s some ham radio operators objected to licensing requirements and power limits placed on them. That doesn't mean those were unreasonable restrictions.

This varies a lot between states. Your description sun's like NH?

Your question is unanswerable. By most definitions (see "Defining Persecution" at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941006 as one example):

> Demonstrating that harm has occurred is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish that the conduct in question amounts to persecution. Rather, the harm experienced must meet the requisite level of severity.

Things already need to be serious before it can be labeled persecution, which means that any persecution is "safe to acknowledge".

The problem is, "persecution" has a many lay meanings, including "any negative social consequence". Felons, for example, face social negative social consequences even after their sentence is over. Free speech and free association require that some free speech leads to negative social consequences. Someone who stands on the street corner and advocates the return of miscegenation laws will likely get a cold shoulder from others, and may describe themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't mean it fits the sort of persecution described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution . Or at http://z9.io/2005/04/14/debian-sarge-php4-and-apache2-why-do... we see someone saying "Debian Sarge, PHP4 and Apache2.. why do you persecute me?", where "persecute" is not meant in the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted for not following participating in flag pledges.

If we go with that lay definition of persecution then clearly some forms of persecution are not only acceptable but encouraged. However, that definition is mostly meaningless and unactionable. Just because the local golf club members feel persecuted because they the city law prevents them from getting enough water to keep the grass green doesn't mean they are a persecuted social group, even if others in the town chastise them for wasting water during a drought. Using that very broad definition we can see that extremely few types of persecution end up with death camps. Or for that matter, rarely grow at all.

"I frankly think implying that jews are persecuted in this country (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same communists you claim to oppose."

Of course you downvote me, you're a bigot and I'm your target victim. You advocated my persecution, and in this case, despite providing a substantive comment you downvoted me-- an act that works to silence me-- because not only are you a bigot you are anti-intellectual.

Thanks at least for admitting it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com