Remix.run Logo
minimaxir 10 hours ago

Because people might have missed it last thread, here's dang's response to the discourse:

> I don't think I've ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they "don't condone violence" and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this community.

> Edit: for anyone wondering (or hoping), no I'm not leaving. That was a momentary expression of dismay.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47728106

mcdeltat 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I recently saw a lecture by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky [1] which discussed the complexities of human violence. We both condone and don't condone violence all the time, depending on social context. And furthers, our ways of expressing violence are varied (even down to tiny things like the silent treatment). We (along with other animals) have always used aggression to enforce social order and obtain social benefit.

Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

[1] https://youtu.be/GRYcSuyLiJk?si=HhnAUKelmR7igO9x

Imustaskforhelp 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

Can I just say that out of all of this discourse happening, this might be the most insightful yet succint position to explain my stance on all of this especially the "its all social context." line.

I feel like many of us here might share an answer publicly but I have always believed that if I am in the shoes of someone else, I might act the way they do so in a sense I understand the human part of it. A human did the violence and why. I understand that. Now we can call this violence inhuman, sure, but this action is still done by human and for many reasons. And I also understand why people condemn these actions, we wish to live in a clean and structural world and then we see the messiness of the world.

I just feel like just condemning an action would do nothing unless we change the ground conditions but that isn't in the hands of even many of us Hackernews users and this is basically a class aspect to it.

I personally feel like there are some similarities to this incident to the Trolley problem actually. Vsauce did a video about it worth watching[0]

Thank you for writing this comment.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA

jbxntuehineoh 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

only on this site would people need a neuroscience lecture to understand elements of human nature that are apparent to most elementary schoolers

yetihehe 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe that unique community of HN consist mostly of individuals that weren't able to fully understand those elements of human nature as elementary (and sometimes high-school) schoolers. I stand as one example of such person, it took me about 30 years before I understood that I lacked such innate understanding at school.

ItsHarper 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you meant condemn, but otherwise, well said.

mcdeltat 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yes in the second paragraph I definitely meant condemn, thank you.

Teever 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's also the international angle here.

How is a person from a nation that the US President has threatened to annex or invade supposed to feel about seeing domestic violence in the United States? From their perspective a divided United States is less of a personal threat to them.

All this talk about how 'we can't have this in a democracy!' forgets that many of us don't live in that particular democracy, and that particular democracy is threatening other democracies.

What should my response be if a North Korean General is executed? Or if a Russian oligarch 'falls out a window'? Or a corrupt Mexican politician is beheaded by a rival cartel?

These American oligarchs aren't my countrymen, They don't have my best interests in mind, they fund the people who threaten my country, and now they provide the American military with technology that it can use to attack my country.

Their lobbying and campaign contributes have resulted in a Mad King waging an unwinnable war that has severely damaged the global economy and has made my life demonstrably worse. I have never done anything to these people and yet they callously did this to all of us for personal profit well beyond what any human being could never need in a thousand life times.

At the end of the day the less cohesive the American tribe is the better off my tribe is. I wish our incentives were aligned but they just aren't and I am not in any way responsible for that.

UncleMeat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It is fascinating to me that this was the thing that dang thinks is the most violent in the forum's history.

Not people advocating for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from covid. Not people advocating for bombing campaigns blowing children to smithereens. Not people advocating for mass cuts to programs treating people with tuberculosis. Not people advocating for mass cuts to programs feeding the starving. Not people defending ICE in murdering people either via gunshot or medical neglect in their disgusting prisons.

In fact, a lot discussion critical of that stuff just gets [flagged].

None of that counts as violence to dang. But threaten a billionaire? Oh that's a bridge too far.