I think it’s incredibly important to have active and engaging conversations about the FCC on HN, regardless of political ideology, because of our shared identity as those deeply involved with tech.
We should be openly discussing whether freedom of speech and information is being infringed by governments around the world in ways which can and do infringe upon our world.
By an earnest suggestion from an administration that respects the United States, our freedoms, and our institutions. Not an implicit threat from a wannabe dictator who hangs giant pictures of himself up on government buildings to glorify himself, throws vindictive hissy fits when he doesn't get his way, and rambles at length about how he hates most American values.
How could the current administration appropriately suggest—and how could any institution earnestly commemorate—a democracy with all things considered with respect to its present state?
The fundamental problem is that it can't, because the current administration does not support democracy, which relies on the rule of law. Its leadership style is based on fomenting division to rally true believers, rather than broad-appeal attempts at constructive policy. So appeals to come together to celebrate what we have in common come off as hollow Orwellian doublespeak.
The question is basically in the realm of how do you celebrate someone's birthday when their wife just died? Yes, it's the country's 250 birthday, but we're currently going through a very dark period that does not reflect well onto the lofty ideals we take as our country's founding.
Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?
I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.
The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.
There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.
[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you
> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]
In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.
To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.
> where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic…
Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.
Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?
[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.
I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.
What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.
Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.
It simply shouldn’t be? Nationalistic and forced religious belief (i.e., which is what the altered Pledge is) are antithetical to the US Constitution and are NOT in the public interest.
Do you believe that such a campaign would not exist under a President who is a Democrat?
I’m sure it’s easy to assume that these questions aren’t in good faith. Of course I have a point of my own that I could make, but then we’d be arguing over that instead and I’m less interested in trying to speculate better than you than I’m curious about what you think on your own.
So there isn’t any way that an administration led by a Democrat would implement such a campaign? You can’t imagine that? If not under an identical premise (viz. the US semiquincentennial) but under some other initiative to instill non-partisan nationalist pride at a time where it is virtually absent?
Well it didn't, that's the point
it just wouldnt? what are you trying to say
What purpose is this submission supposed to serve? What kind of discussion around it do you think would be more appropriate?
I think it’s incredibly important to have active and engaging conversations about the FCC on HN, regardless of political ideology, because of our shared identity as those deeply involved with tech.
We should be openly discussing whether freedom of speech and information is being infringed by governments around the world in ways which can and do infringe upon our world.
So how might a campaign such as this be advanced or advertised in ways that don’t infringe upon Democratic values?
By an earnest suggestion from an administration that respects the United States, our freedoms, and our institutions. Not an implicit threat from a wannabe dictator who hangs giant pictures of himself up on government buildings to glorify himself, throws vindictive hissy fits when he doesn't get his way, and rambles at length about how he hates most American values.
How could the current administration appropriately suggest—and how could any institution earnestly commemorate—a democracy with all things considered with respect to its present state?
The fundamental problem is that it can't, because the current administration does not support democracy, which relies on the rule of law. Its leadership style is based on fomenting division to rally true believers, rather than broad-appeal attempts at constructive policy. So appeals to come together to celebrate what we have in common come off as hollow Orwellian doublespeak.
The question is basically in the realm of how do you celebrate someone's birthday when their wife just died? Yes, it's the country's 250 birthday, but we're currently going through a very dark period that does not reflect well onto the lofty ideals we take as our country's founding.
Thank you for your time here.
Do you have a constructive point, or are you just doing some vague both sidesism ?
Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?
I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.
In the direction of absurd.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47103957 felt dismissive. If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.
There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.
[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you
> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]
In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.
To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.
> where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic…
Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.
Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?
[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.
I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.
What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.
Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.
It simply shouldn’t be? Nationalistic and forced religious belief (i.e., which is what the altered Pledge is) are antithetical to the US Constitution and are NOT in the public interest.
Do you believe that such a campaign would not exist under a President who is a Democrat?
I’m sure it’s easy to assume that these questions aren’t in good faith. Of course I have a point of my own that I could make, but then we’d be arguing over that instead and I’m less interested in trying to speculate better than you than I’m curious about what you think on your own.
So there isn’t any way that an administration led by a Democrat would implement such a campaign? You can’t imagine that? If not under an identical premise (viz. the US semiquincentennial) but under some other initiative to instill non-partisan nationalist pride at a time where it is virtually absent?
I suppose we'll have to see.
Right now we have a Republican administration pushing it.
After some thought, a better question could be:
How might networks effectively satisfy this appeal from the FCC without drawing the ire of the current administration and its supporters?
Civil disobedience?
Silence?!
It would probably be mostly the same, except maybe not suggesting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Except for that most of the kinds of things it gave as examples are close to the kind of things you'd find your local PBS or NPR station.