We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines.
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://hackernews.hn/newsguidelines.html.
When the difference of opinion involves the minimization to the point of eradication of specific groups within society, most of which are predisposed to oppose the political views you hold, then there is No Other Term for it than Naziism.
Not everyone I disagree with is a nazi, but everyone who wants all queer people to stop being publicly visible, everyone who would rather immigrants, muslims, and jews to stop coming to the country or become invisible in daily life, anyone who would think about the problems that disabled people have and come to the 'solution' that they should not reproduce? They're Nazis. To call them anything else would do the memories of those already lost a disservice.
And those who buck at being called Nazis should genuinely detach and reexamine their views to see whether they resemble those of the Nazi party. If they don't, if the people calling them Nazis are simply being reactionary, then fine. But to ignore it without giving the most basic consideration to one's own views is deeply foolhardy at best.
Consider for yourself what you term as 'degenerate', and whether those things have any material impact on your life. Consider what solutions that are non-authoritarian for that degeneracy may look like. Is it offering better mental health services? Is it providing community that doesn't shun, but helps rehabilitate maladaptive practices? Is it allowing general differences of opinion on what counts and doesn't count as degenerate behavior? Is it minding your own goddamn business?
I think you're onto something, but you're missing a really key point of what makes a counterculture.
Consider the 'culture'. Whose side is the balance of power really behind? There are massive influences and money behind traditional christian and conservative values - they have a practical stranglehold on the politics of roughly half of America (by landmass). Is it really 'counter' the culture to embody those values in areas where they are the norm?
I think we don't have 'a' counterculture because we don't have 'a' culture, a unified one, in this country. Trad is as counterculture in California as radical queer/left ideology is in Alabama, and it gets muddier when you look at individual pockets of the opposite in rural areas or cities respectively.
If anything, this cultural split over core values would make anything else - 'radical centrism' for instance - a counterculture in and of itself; except, that tends to be the tack taken by a lot of media (NPR, Meet the Press, etc.). Can that be counterculture?
Alternatively, consider outside of mainstream politics. Co-op organizations, hacker/DIY circles, and protest movements are all certainly 'counter' the norm, but do they all have their own 'culture?' At best they have shared memes, no real ideological unity or even goddang clothing preferences.
Until the FCC declares AM broadcast illegal (and likely for some time after, as pirate radio stations will attempt to fill the dead air out of sheer contrarianism), there will always be users of the AM band. Hell, as popularity wanes, I'll bet that broadcasting expenses will go way down, so we could very well see a renaisseance in the next couple decades as community groups take to it as a new-old means of distribution.
The existence of simulcast doesn't make the AM broadcast any less real. It just broadens the listener scope.
Isn't the practice of interviewing full of fraud on the part of interviewers already? Things like the dreaded '10 years experience in a 2 year old language' in programmer listings? Why shouldn't interviewees use whatever means they can, especially largely untraceable ones like this example, to even the field?
Plus, if you've done any work for friends or other contacts in the meantime, you can just draw up an informal NDA after the fact and then it's not even a lie.
The '10 years experience in a 2 year old language' is an unrealistic whishlist, just like an applicant might have a (probably more realistic) wishlist for compensation or something else. I expect both parties to be truthful about the facts, and either party clearly lying about facts is fraud.
I don't think I have ever had a discussion which started from a neutral point of view. The process of discussion was neutral in the sense that all sides were considered equally, but everyone enters the discussion with something in their mind. Which is fair, right? Everyone has looked and thought about the problem, so of course they have an opinion.
The participants of discussion may have biases, but the forum shouldn't.
This project claims to be promoting a discussion, therefore being the forum rather than a participant. If it itself takes a clear position from the start, it has already impaired the debate by turning itself into a participant vs those for the adoption of AI within government.
Unless its understanding of "dystopian" is one that's merely provocative rather than intrinsically evil or needs to be prevented.
The project itself is not a discussion, but responses and reactions to it form a discussion.
As to neutrality being a prerequisite, are you trying to separate the idea of discussion from debate? I feel you may either have different basic definitional ideas than the people you are arguing with.
On this project specifically, and the notion of AI in government in general, and am reminded of a quote about late nineteenth and early twentieth century utopian fiction, “The authors expend all their effort describing the method of distributing resources without expanding on what the fair distribution is.”
I guess my issue is that IMO these explorations of provocative issues are best done with the least amount of prejudice. When we're clouded by repulsion or other emotional states, we might fail to properly analyze the matter at hand.
By declaring the described future as undesirable, the authors' question and wish to stimulate a discussion is clouded with prejudice, IMHO.
> I'm not making a factual claim, what sources can I cite, Plato?
You said that "Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions". It's factual claim. Do you have a some citation/proof/data that supports your claim? I bet there are plenty papers (or even better, meta-analysis) about discussions.
> It's up to us humans to decide whether discussions are better off taking place within a neutral/biased forum.
First in previous paragraph you stated that every discussion (you didn't specified which ones) needs neutrality and now you state that discussion can take place within biased forum and we should decide which type of discussion we value more aka. one with biased or unbiased forum? Maybe start with deciding which one this two statements is true.
I'm not interested to researching into the research of discussions. You're free to disagree if you think discussions aren't best done within a neutral forum, but I expect most people to have the common sense of seeing the benefit of it.
Which question is a useful opener for a discussion:
- "How can we help Africa end starvation?"
vs
- "Should we send more aid to these ungrateful African countries who have been cozying up to China instead? (Obviously not)".
It should be obvious which is a discussion and which is merely a statement veiled as a rhetorical question. But hey maybe most people can't tell and that's why Fox news still has so many viewers.
