What's the reason why English and most other languages of Europe treat blue and green like distinct basic colors, while many languages of Asia have one word encompassing both? What's the reason why Hungarian has two basic words for different kinds of red? It's just a historical artifact of language evolution. Russian happened to the evolve two different distinct basic color words for blue; to an English speaker, both are different shades of blue, but in Russian, neither is a shade of the other; and Russian has no single color word encompassing the English concept of "blue".
Even in English, in certain contexts, blue-green middling shades are treated individually (turquoise, cyan). Of course there are many color names in paint/art, but even in everyday situations there is a pretty clear concept of turquoise being its own distinct color.
Two basic color words for different types of blue. You might think of azure, cobalt, and sapphire as shades of blue. To a Russian speaker, синий and голубой are not shades of each other, they are different basic colors, like blue and green in English. And there is no one color word in Russian encompassing all blues.
I think pink is less clearly a shade of red (it can go a bit into blue), while "голубой" is simply light or pale blue: AFAICT it's used as an alias, and one may call it "light blue" as well.
Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas." You're correct, a square peg does not fit in the round hole. And you've also failed to negate the myriad arguments favoring continued anonymity with any salient cons, but have instead erected a strawman.
>Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary.
No it isn't. Social media is a near required part of modern life for a lot of people, especially those in the public sphere. For example, it is near impossible to be a freelance journalist without a social media account. Once you have that account, people are free to push their anonymous posts to you.
>This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement.
This is just a baffling comment and shows you are out of touch with the type of abuse we are talking about. I can't imagine you have seen any of this first hand if you think this is "close kin to victimless crime". There are very much victims on the end of this abuse.
You literally just indicated that anonymity is important. Freelancers could publish under a pseudonym - a form of anonymity to protect themselves from the public.
And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive.
I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.
This is classic victim blaming. It is the fault of the person being abused for either not being preemptively anonymous or for "choosing" to allow doxing, death threats, and the like being part of their "personal narrative"?
People spread harmful lies better when they aren't banned from doing so and when the harm they do is attached to a pseudonym not their actual life.
It is vastly harder to exclude people spreading harmful lies when they can do it under 27 trivially created and then discarded identities across 12 platform.
It's trivial to argue that people agree to engage with online communities as they agree to engage in in person communities but what is the realistic alternative? Both huddle in your basement AND don't engage online either?
It is unrealistic when your online life is a large part of people's gateway to communication and culture. People deserve to be able to engage in such without also expecting harm.
Furthermore people's online hate touches people's lives with or without their opting for engagement when the festering hate nurtured online gives birth to real world violence, mass murder, coup, collapse of civil society.
It seems trivially true that anonymity enables hate and I support both people's right to voice unpopular but not harmful ideas and consequences for those who call for hate and violence.
You may note my username is simply a plain old name and it's my real name. I cannot any longer support anonymity save for cases where safety demand it.
>You may note my username is simply a plain old name and it's my real name. I cannot any longer support anonymity save for cases where safety demand it.
Please ask yourself how you would feel if this site did that -- or even, in fact, if HN didn't actually make anon accounts (without even requiring an email confirmation) so easy that it's an incredibly common occurrence.
One of the things I like about HN is that while anonymity is certainly possible having an identity which is known to the community (whether that be one's actual identity, or in my case a pseudonymous one), allows us to build (and/or repudiate/destroy, as we choose) credibility and engage in discussions over time.
I will say that 'nobody9999' is not the name on my passport, nor is it the name I use with my bank or (when I actually used such things) social media accounts.
However, a search through HN's archives will, nonetheless, provide a history of my comments and submissions.
Should I turn into a raving asshole, the admins/moderators can sanction/ban me without ever knowing my 'legal' name.
That makes a lot more sense than forcing folks to tie their legal identities to everything they do online.
> People spread harmful lies better when they aren't banned from doing so and when the harm they do is attached to a pseudonym not their actual life.
Do they? To me it seems that people demand credentials in most cases to merit trust from an unknown. I certainly don't hop on 4chan and assume literal factual information is being doled out in every post. Nor on Twitter, nor Fecebook. I might backtest whatever they're proposing, but remain skeptical until I've seen it with my own eyes. And in any case if we look into the annals of history, this is blatantly false, there are reams of examples of people lying in plain sight. Tyrants and demagogues, kings and courts, basically every politician, corporations, and just regular people. Of course we've always had the issue of "determination of truth", history to the victor and such.
>It is vastly harder to exclude people spreading harmful lies when they can do it under 27 trivially created and then discarded identities across 12 platform.
Let's assume we've actually objectively determined the truth: what happens when the liars are let free? They're running around screaming 1+1=3, how is it that they're going to intuited by everyone else? I suspect, as idiots. Naive interventionism in this case turns them into a divided minority instead of an integrated (and stupid) extremity. Upon being separated they go off and get more and more wild, 1+1=5, 10, 0... Their bonds grow in strength because they're made a separate minority, and far less likely to cease their stupidity.
>It's trivial to argue that people agree to engage with online communities as they agree to engage in in person communities but what is the realistic alternative? Both huddle in your basement AND don't engage online either?
For one, I'm not saying that everything everywhere had ought to have the facilities of anonymity, but that instituting a mode of state coercion blanketing every site on the internet is plainly a hazard. But this line is non-sequitur anyways, we're talking about anonymity in social media not in-person interaction.
>It is unrealistic when your online life is a large part of people's gateway to communication and culture. People deserve to be able to engage in such without also expecting harm.
How do you define harm? Here's a salient conundrum: a guy asks a girl out, she tells him she's not interested. Or the obverse, however you like it. In either case they're very likely emotionally wounded. Then what? What do we take from this?
>Furthermore people's online hate touches people's lives with or without their opting for engagement when the festering hate nurtured online gives birth to real world violence, mass murder, coup, collapse of civil society.
The Nazis did this, the Khmer Rogue did this, the Bolsheviks did this all in plain sight. Millions dead in their wake. Violence was often a means to a better end - depending on perspective. The Hellenic empire was established through warfare, Alexander has been intuited as a great unifier, bringing together a vast and highly integrated culture made of many diverse cultures. The French revolution was a supermassive turning point, and largely lead us to be where we are today, but it was extremely violent. The USA was founded after a revolutionary war. The concern is wanton violence, which in any case is rare, and I suspect anonymity on the internet has little to contribute to it overall, despite the narratives espoused by many.
Civil society is free discourse, but we've long been eroding it.
>It seems trivially true that anonymity enables hate and I support both people's right to voice unpopular but not harmful ideas and consequences for those who call for hate and violence.
If we adopt the relativistic standpoint, every opinion is harmful to someone. Utilitarianism is flawed, not everyone can be happy, even negative utilitarianism is flawed.
It's incredibly unsettling that discussions like these seem to be fought tooth and nail on the internet of all places in this day and age.
It seems like we would never have gotten this far if it wasn't for the kind of interactions you are defending and yet you are entangled in a debate with someone who likely grew up in a society where this approach to interaction was championed throughout their life who is simultaneously insisting that it's more harm than good.
More unsettling is the fact that when I read the sentence:
>How do you define harm? Here's a salient conundrum: a guy asks a girl out, she tells him she's not interested. Or the obverse, however you like it. In either case they're very likely emotionally wounded. Then what? What do we take from this?
I began to wonder whether if I said that in public I would end up in a lot of trouble and possibly fired for daring to suggest that being rejected could hurt the feelings of the person being rejected in an equally valid way as it may make the person being asked out feel uneasy.
I eagerly await the day when I do not constantly feel terrorized by the threat of becoming socially outcast for saying something which should be entirely benign but which has become taboo.
How many climate predictions have been correct? How many predictions in general have, a posteriori been right? This is multivariate, not necessarily a question of the effects of climate itself, but every conceivable effect in a long chain, including further human intervention and non-linearities in global climate behavior that are yet-to-be observed and no doubt a lengthy slew of other factors. But we're not allowed to talk about speculation, right?
Well, that depends on the human reaction. Think of screaming "fire" in a movie theatre. Panicked rush out, egregious disregard for human life and safety for the sake of self-preservation. Consider our theatre patrons are armed, guns, knives, nuclear weapons, economic warfare. I'm not saying there is necessarily going to be world destruction, but it isn't-not on the menu.
Do you think, that having been through Cold-war era conditioning and propaganda, that you're sort of sensitized to the "modern Russia tropes"? I ask because, well Russia seems like a shithole. A sort of noncompete on the global scale outside their natural resource stockpiles, but the US demagogues seem to like to point fingers there and I see it as more or less a propaganda tool. I suspect it's aimed at the generations that experienced the cold war, but I'm inducing hard.
I think a lot of people miss the Cold War. There was this far away, monolythic, scary enemy, that can be reliably used to justify any amount of military expenses. And to a certain point it was, of course, since up until 1953 they were expecting a "world revolution".
The situation changed ever so slightly after 1985, culminating in dissolution of USSR. Good riddance!
And now the same forces - or new incarnation of the same forces - are working again to create that image of an absolute enemy - on both sides. It's just so easy.
I've read a lot of articles condemning the state of science today, things like redacted papers having thousands of citations, replication crises. I've heard a lot of accounts of scientists on HN decrying the perversions of funding. Science is messy. Humans are messy. Theory of Falsification. Skepticism. Shit even my late-year biology textbook hasn't integrated the stochastic variability in movement of forks in DNA replication, neither did my professor.
I don't know what to take from any of it, I'll believe it when I see it. Je ne crois que ce que je vois.
How do you present examples when all it takes is a narrative of "conspiracy theory" to dismiss them? We know both government and corporations are, remain, and will continue to remain corruptible. We know they've done bad things, we know they do bad things, we know they can continue to do bad things.
It's that there's a conspiracy, but if they provide an example, you will accuse them of believing there's a conspiracy, which would distract from the argument that there is a conspiracy.
So you've seen the wealth gap graphic, where they slice it up into deciles? Further into percentages?
It's wrong, it doesn't account for debt. There should be a huge mass of people that are net negative. I think we're really presented with all the wrong information.
First we need to break down into a heat map of CoL which can act as an approximation of demand for the given region. Then we need to look at individual median (perhaps modal) cash flow, where your deciles land, and whether that's translating into profit when you calculate in inflationary pressures. Then you've got to look at average degrees of freedom given demographics like no-diploma, GED/equivalent, HS-diploma, and degree strata that indicate an upward move in purely economic terms. I think what you'd find is the vast majority of people are just on the treadmill, and will for the foreseeable future there remain.
I expect the median net worth (what's the method?) of a 35 year old is very much in the negative space. And I'd hope over a lifetime that the 65-74 cohort is breakeven - which is about what you've indicated - Zillow indicates the average value of a house is $264k.
To some extent this is how our system is designed to work, but the system itself is predicated on a slew of fallacious logic and wholly removed from any semblance of morality while dually being totally unaccountable for the destruction and extraction of value that it is founded on.
I should also add that power as a function of wealth had ought to be looked at. What is the effective cost of having a voice in policy? I suspect it's in the highest echelons of net worth that you can even begin thinking about leveraging the system, and locally at that. At which point, corporate personhood might had ought to be considered, how does that deform our distribution?
If someone has a mortgage on a home, their net worth is still positive (unless they're under water). If you put 20,000 down on a 100,000 home and get a 80,000 mortgage, then your net worth is still 20,000. Yes, you have 80,000 in debt, but you own an asset worth 100,000. Net worth is total assets - total liabilities.
> then your net worth is still 20,000. Yes, you have 80,000 in debt, but you own an asset worth 100,000.
No you have 20% ownership of an asset that is worth $100,000. The bank owns the other 80% of that asset. When you pay your mortgage every month you are essentially buying a portion of their stake in your house. At the end of the mortgage they will own 0% and you will own 100%.
That’s not true at all. If you buy the house for 100k and sell it for 200k, you walk away with 120k after paying off your mortgage. If you only owned 20%, then you would walk away with 40k. Similarly, in non-recourse states (which is most states) you are on the hook for the mortgage amount if the value of the house goes down.
You meant to say "recourse" states - non-recourse means that the bank can't pursue you for any remaining amount you owe on the house after they foreclose on the house. Non-recourse is not very common, but California is a non-recourse state, for example.
Debt is at best a red herring, an individual with a $30k mortgage on a $60k home is not in the same situation as an individual with $30k in the bank and $30k of credit card debt yet they both have $30k in debt.
If you have a 30k mortgage on a 60k home by selling all your assets you're 30k up, whereas the other scenario has you at zero. Net worth would arrive to the same conclusion, so I don't see net worth including wealth to be a bad metric here.
I don't think it's a question of fears as much as it is the pain in the ass. I can't tell you how many times I've registered to a website to use it just once for one single feature, but I assure you it's many. But yeah, I also don't want associated with them, I don't want accounts, and I don't want to put a superfluity of my information in someone else's hands. So these sorts of sites are quite nice.
Globalism is inherently fragile. This is part of a continued trend which has enough inertia to carry us to an inflection point where it could conceivably destroy everything human, either in real terms or something less tractable. We made a wrong turn a very long time ago, and since we've been extraordinarily misdirected but inextricably committed to the mistake we've made. We're totally in the dark, and truth becomes ever more indefinite as we travel down this timeline and the path we [never] elected.
You see, the way that we made exchange was translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one. Dollar valuations of a lifetimes is an intrinsically abhorrent concept. A life can never be repaid, thus it can never be valued in real terms - yet it is, billions of times over. Globalism is just a long-range result of this. Exploitation and undervaluing of billions of lives in order to create increasingly competitive products to grow dollar values of a investments in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the population. This itself founded on false pretense.
Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
This is a lot of doomsaying, with no evidence and very little details or logic. It's like you expect your reader to already agree with you and nod along to "mistake" and "misdirected" and all the other negative language you use without any explanation of what you're actually talking about.
> We made a wrong turn a very long time ago
What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that. Otherwise: what are you talking about?
> translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one.
What? Can you explain what this is supposed to mean?
I don't understand the comment you replied to either. To my naive mind it sounds like a lot of words put together to make it look like something deep, but that doesn't actually mean something. It'd be happy to be showed wrong here with historical events to describe "the wrong" turns and such to be able to tell if it's not just a abstraction or feelings that went a bit to far.
Could it be a lot of words to describe an interpretation of globalization as a perceived single point of failure across every subsection of civilization/humanity?
> What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that.
Are there really people who believe that? I've only read it in Sapiens by YN Harari, and it sounded like a ridiculous idea written to provoke thought, not an actual opinion. "Yes, hunter-gatherers could starve on a bad year, and they sometimes got eaten by tigers, but look at how un-alienated they were!"
The author probably wouldn't have been to write his book or share these thoughts to more than 30 people without the invention of agriculture...
> I've only read it in Sapiens by YN Harari, and it sounded like a ridiculous idea written to provoke thought, not an actual opinion. "Yes, hunter-gatherers could starve on a bad year, and they sometimes got eaten by tigers, but look at how un-alienated they were!"
The argument I saw put more emphasis on things like nutritional deficiencies after the switch [1], reflected in average male height going from 5'9" to 5'3". Obviously in the long run agriculture became very efficient, but he makes a reasonable case that in the short run individual quality of life went downhill, with the main advantage being reaching higher population densities before being at the limit of the food supply, and so winning any conflicts with hunter-gatherer societies.
The idea, at least as I’ve seen it a number of places, wasn’t that agriculture was a long-run bad idea, but that for a very long time it decreased the median quality of life (while also greatly reducing volatility in the quality of life for most people, and enabling extraordinary improvements in the quality of life for – again, for a very long time – an extremely narrow elite.)
I am as confused as you are; this reads almost like GPT-3 generated text - there are words that resolve to sentences, it scans like real human writing, but there's little to no information communicated.
The breakdown is basically:
* A statement of the premise: "Globalism is bad" without defining 'globalism'.
* Some vague ominous sentences that sound like they reinforce the premise but don't.
* A long paragraph that basically makes the statement "Human lives can't be assigned a dollar value" with no real attempt to tie it to the premise.
> Globalism is inherently fragile
> Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
I don’t really agree in the slightest unless you’re making the claim that all political systems above the family level are inherently fragile in which case it’s a moot point. The previous international standard was war when there were major disagreements. Globalism has helped make the entire planet relatively(relative is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but still counts) peaceful compared to the past
