Lack of moderation is 10x a worse problem for revenue that offending the blue icons.
Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship.
I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had.
Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.
Anecdote to the contrary, I personally got banned from Twitter for answering the question “What do you think about them men?” with “#KillAllMen”. Now this is obviously not a real threat to use violence, but it got me banned nonetheless. To me it seems like Twitter is perfectly happy to moderate against the likes of feminists and LGBTQ+ activists.
The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence.
Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse?
The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.
Never claimed I shouldn’t have been banned (and frankly, I’m a little glad I was), just providing an anecdote that “saying things about 'men' or 'white people' does indeed fall under the same auspices” as bigots on the other political wing.
Full disclosure though, I do believe moderation should not be applied equally across political the spectrum, when one extreme goes against a protected minority, but I won’t go into further details here on HN, as it would go against the guidelines of not engaging in political battles.
>>The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.
Well said, it's like a neonazi taking pride in having advocated genocide of all Jews. This is why the "protected minority" ideology, whereby how people can be treated is based on the alleged victimization of their group, is dangerous.
>This is why the "protected minority" ideology, whereby how people can be treated is based on the alleged victimization of their group, is dangerous.
I remain hopeful that US laws and regulations regarding "protected classes" will someday be successfully challenged by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
My "perennialy [sic] problematic ideal" is that the history book you got from the library has been overdue since 1972, and the historian has a 1950s conformist America mindset, which is the basis of the basic, red-pilled model of white male resentment.
There is no "nuance" in that mindset. It is factually wrong. It doesn't work today. It wallows in nostalgia. The nostalgia is, in part, to make up for the fact that the red pill contains no culture: No art, no literature, no music, no theatre - nothing that makes America a global cultural beacon, and nothing that women would want to spend any time with. It is a loser mindset, and deservedly so.
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly in this thread. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've had to ask you this before, so if you'd please fix this, we'd be grateful.
I would gladly delete most of my comments on this thread. HN is a fine site and the way you run it is instrumental to keeping it that way. Still, you might give some thought to the healthiness of showcasing what are objectively fringe ideologies that would in other places be rightly be called out as, at least, adjacent to outright bigotry. There's another site that's dying because they think that stuff is good.
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and ignoring our request to stop.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly in this thread. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've had to ask you this before, so if you'd please fix this, we'd be grateful.
Fisted by Foucault is a dark substack, meaning at least partly ideological lies and disinformation.
It's a bit like Zero Hedge in that it's one of those places where they like to talk about how the 'World Really Works!' aka 'behind the curtain' and they do so with some actual insight and intelligence, but ultimately there's a lot of BS and lies, and plenty of over misinformation.
The author is also a pro-Putin fascist / apologist who thinks that Putin's invasion of Ukraine must somehow be the result of Russia's victimization by other countries.
"would make Brazil a lot more stable economically (and even socially and politically) "
It's the other way around.
Brazil and Argentina especially should be rich, what's lacking is coherent social organization from top to bottom. Obviously it matters more at the top, but it has to be borne by regular people as well.
Same could be said of other Central/South American nations, but geographic factors and natural resources do give a material advantage that can be leveraged into a lot.
Consider that Canada, unlike most other so called 'advanced nations' - does not actually have lot of advanced industry. Research, yes, but 'applied' - no. And yet, because it has a 'free export card' with natural resources, it can import the equipment and materials necessary to support the rest of the regular domestic economy, which benefits from ultra boring politics, 'functional' bureaucracy, low levels of corruption.
Innovations can only be leveraged by organizations that have the coherent ability to make use if them.
The 'low hanging fruit' in Brazil is governance, though I hope this Wheat helps.
Why don't the states there organize into a southern United States? It feels silly to talk about self-sufficiency and all when the analog at country level is the USA states. Nobody would expect e.g. Rhode Island to feed itself, but thankfully there is the Midwest. Maybe Bolivar's dream could come true one day.
The United States grew (colonized, captured, appropriated - feel free to chose the verb that most agrees with your view - it doesn't matter too much) into relatively uninhabited land from a starting point with a relatively uniform culture and ideals. As areas got to a large enough population that they could become a state, they were added to the union.
South American is already mature. The countries there have different political situations and relationships. Trying to bring them into one federal republic is a non-starter -- it ain't gonna happen.
A better model would be the EU where you have mature countries removing trade barriers between them, allowing free immigration, and a single currency. This was anchored by a few large countries that had relatively low corruption, peaceful relations and strong economies.
South America... doesn't quite have a strong set of low corruption and strong economies. There are regular coups and a number of ongoing civil wars that would make trying even for a loose coalition of countries in South America difficult.
The Latin American countries are probably too different to unify. Some are led by right-wing populists (El Salvador) and some by left-wing ones (Colombia, Brazil). Some are rich (Uruguay) and some are very poor (Nicaragua, Venezuela). Some are huge and powerful (Brazil and Mexico) and would be able to completely dominate the rest. Some are liberal democracies and some are one-party states.
On the cultural level, they have some similarity but not to the extent that they view each other as part of the same “nation” or “people”. One shouldn’t exaggerate the effect of speaking the same language: consider the fact that the US, Singapore, and Zimbabwe are all English-speaking officially (or de facto officially in the case of the US). Also Brazil does not even speak the same language as the rest.
Some differences do of course exist between the various US states but to a much, much lesser extent.
I think your first paragraph describes the EU/EEA too, or at least it did when Poland et al joined in 2004.
Germany and France (and the UK at the time) dominate. Poor nations like Poland and Greece with rich ones like Norway. Conservative countries like Hungary alongside progressive social democracies like France and Sweden.
Well, the EU is not one country and probably never will be. One of the most important countries has already left, euroskepticism is a major political force in many of the remaining ones, the idea of “ever closer union” seems to be dead, some natural future members (Turkey, Serbia) are indefinitely stalled, and even mildly authoritarian members like Hungary and Poland (which, btw, are infinitely more liberal and democratic than Cuba or Venezuela) are constantly in conflict with the central institutions.
I doubt there will ever be even an EU-like structure encompassing Latin America, but even if there is, that would be a far cry from becoming a united sovereign state.
The geography really makes it hard to create a cohesive whole. The rainforest is almost impossible to traverse by road.
It doesn’t help that the two largest countries, Brazil and Argentina, speak different languages.
It’s hard to bring people together when they speak different languages and have to take a plane or cross difficult terrain to meet each other.
Well, Bolivar tried but, luckilly, failed. Good for us he was no big military genius, and a coward in battle. We don't need a Napoleon wannabe in South America, thank you very much.
Would you mind expanding a bit on the whole “no big military genius” and “coward in battle” or share some links on it? I’ve heard and read many critics of Bolivar but never any of the sort you mention (not trying to call you out or anything, just genuinely curious about it)
I've read it a couple years ago and it made a big impression on me, had to track it down now.
I misremembered it as San Martin's opinion while old and dying in France, but it appears to be the description given by Karl Marx to Engels (apparently on a letter sent on 1858-02-14, though I can't find that letter right now). This article [0] on the Metapedia explains a bit of the history on why Marz was talking about Bolivar, but also says that modern marxists don't share this view.
Unwillingness to build nuclear power, which could possibly solve the problem, is a driver of suspicion, which is a driver of denial.
Politicization of social sciences and campus activities, severely damages credibility, which drives denial.
Corruption of global institutions (such as the WHO, in light of COVID origins) and the understandable yet also uncomfortable 'Don't Look Here' approach to NIH, Lancet relationship with Wuhan Biolab Research (it's complicated) generates deep suspicion, and fosters denial.
Big Pharma + McKinsey designed scheme to addict millions with opioids without real consequences, and subsequent embracing of Big Pharma during COVID on totally unquestionable terms aka 'Trust The Science!', although rational from a policy perspective (it's a national emergency), is again, a huge driver of suspicion and therefore denial.
Political voices basically have no credibility in most situations and won't be able to convince anyone remotely skeptical.
I think things like 'Housing Insurance' frankly is one of the better means of social interdiction, it hits people right in the pocket book, and I would hope insurance companies just send out the letter with the graph saying 'well, this is where the weather is going, this is the expected damage, so this is your rate'. That's not political logic.
If eco warriors rationally believe this fear mania, then why are they not screaming for a Nuclear Energy revolution aka large scale builout over the next 20 years to literally save the planet?
Because we could absolutely do it, we wouldn't need to invent a single iota of new tech.
It wouldn't even be that hard - we need to pick up where we left off in 1985 when the 'eco warriors' stopped the buildout.
Why does the current Administration believe in 'science' only when it suits them?
Far from not being listened to - the green movement absolutely killed nuclear development and research in the 1980's and continue to fear monger about that issue, in places like Germany, the fear is generationally entrenched.
The buildout curve grows rapidly in 1980's and 1980's and then drops to 0 in the early 1990's [1].
Were the USA to have 'kept the pace' on that buildout, 60-85% of current electricity generation in USA would be supplied by Nuclear, much as it is in France.
The denialism of the green crowd is existentially damaging to their credibility.
With respect to climate change, far from 'not being listened to' - they're the most influential NGO movement maybe in history (aside from religious movements) - and influence government policy all over the world, at the highest levels, towards a fundamental reshaping of the economic basis.
Mixed in with the 'climate movement' are all sorts of other ideologies, particularly those against consumption etc. which gives you hints as to why they won't chose a relatively clear 'almost solution' to their supposedly existential problems.
If there's a funny bit of history it's that Greenpeace has caused climate change. They saved the Whales, which is nice, but they killed Nuclear (and continue to hold it back) which is bad.
Look at the data from the EIA. Look at those numbers, rate of buildout, and the % contribution made to US energy generation mix. Extend the growth phase (which stopped in 1990) out 20 more years. What is the result?
The result is relatively easy reach to Paris targets.
The "green warriors" today want all of us to go vegan, fly less, bike everywhere, live in dense cities, and buy new clothes once every 5 years. How do you rate the chances of them succeeding at any of those things, like they supposedly "killed nuclear power"?
Clearly someone else, with actual power and influence, wanted to kill nuclear. The environmentalists made for a convenient scapegoat. You fell for it too.
If the claims of climate change people were true, that we are facing existential destruction in short order - then how is it possible they are denying a tried and true solution?
We could have reached 'Paris targets' long ago were we to have kept deploying Nuclear installations, in the terms that we understood decades ago. With fewer accidents. Etc.
The denial of a tried and true solution to this supposedly existential crisis destroys their credibility, and therefor their claims. That's not to say clams aren't valid, but that we can't trust the vanguard of the people behind the climate movement, obviously.
It's incredibly naive (but maybe understandable) for people to not understand that the issue of climate change is hugely politicized and ideological, and because of that, it's hard to make heads or tails of a lot of information.
People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner.
But its overall meaning was not clear, and it context was not clear. English isn't machine code. "Loopholes work under tyrants" is a valid and meaningful English statement but it doesn't have any meaning to this conversation and if I said it as part of my argument you would not know how it contributed to my argument; it is effectively nonsense.
> People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner.
That's a complete non-sequitur. But first, I apparently have to say that people can share one idea and not all their ideas. For example, we both probably believe that using the internet brings us value, since we're doing it. But we disagree on other things! So I wouldn't call us "the internet people." Similarly, there's no such thing as "climate change people." There are people who are concerned about climate change.
Now, the fact that many of them teamed up to kill nuclear is indeed a big problem. But, it is not reasonable to dismiss the dangers of climate change just because that happened. As you say: we're probably worse off due to nuclear disinvestment... making the dangers even greater. So we still need to seriously work hard to address climate change rapidly. Even if it's too late for nuclear, climate change is still a problem. I don't know what your actual position is - what change you'd want to see in the world. None?
Finally, I realize I'm probably wasting my time. When you talk about people "running around screaming that the sky is falling", that's a strawman, it's disingenuous, and it tells me you have no respect for a viewpoint opposing yours. Please take note that I'm not deploying hyperbole and metaphor to make your side sounds stupid, I'm just engaging your words and ideas.
My gosh 'the robots that replaced the factory workers ... will just help the workers - so now worries!'
Do you know what happened to manufacturing when automation low-cost outsourcing happened?
It was wiped out.
It was devastating for certain sectors of the economy, even as 'net productivity rose' - the surpluses were acquired by some, not others.
A lot of 'ghettos' in the US are a direct result of mass factory closures.
Now - imagine that happening over the developing world, or rather, factories that were supposed to open, never did.
The developing world are 'services export' economy, with things like call centres etc. - and AI will more likely than not just evaporate those roles.
That those people will have 'access to ChatGPT' is besides the point when most of them don't even have computers (just mobile phones), or any way to apply that knowledge.
It's a bit like saying: 'The developing world has access to Wikipedia and all of Harvard courses online! They should all have great jobs!'
Unfortunately that's not how it works.
AI is going to help white collar workers, not pink or blue collar work which is low-skilled.
I'm not sure whether there was much planning involved here. I mean they hadn't even a good escape-route. They just stopped coming to work, instead of terminating the contract, or call ill.
Are we at diminishing marginal returns and not getting closer?
Do we need a 'leap' in AI? Or is this just a matter of grinding it out?