> First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established concepts in history and the social sciences...
I agree with the impulse here, but I wouldn't give those words a pass so quickly. Some (all?) of them are poorly understood.
Even here on HN, a potential bastion of reason, and presumably populated mostly by products of education in capitalist countries, I routinely come across anti-"capitalist" sentiment that is really complaining about something else: cronyism, regulatory capture, non-violent extortion, etc.
From wikipedia:
"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets."
Go google "site:ycombinator.com capitalist". All sorts of nonsense HN comments show up in which people object to capitalism but aren't clearly criticizing wages, prices, private contracts, private property, etc.
I disagree. Many complaints about capitalism are often rebuffed with some form of "No True Scottsman" fallacy when people raise this points about capitalism. Defenders of communism fall into the same trap.
I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction mechanism for that.
If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with. Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.
My basic point was that "capitalism" is a term not understood broadly enough to be meaningful. Your (justified) complaint about "No True Scotsman" fallacies supports my point. As does your critique of the shifting feelings about capitalism over the years.
My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending it are rarely talking about the same thing. I have seen people defending capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are referring to the canonical definitions. I have seen, though less frequently, people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages, property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).
That Google search doesn't really say much about the content of the arguments, or the distribution on any political spectrum except "people have different opinions" - but AFAICT the critiques of capitalism either argue that it inherently leads to inequality and corruption - ultimately dooming efforts to fix "cronyism[...] etc." within the system - or that the neoliberal school of thought enables it by dismantling unions and the government's ability to affect the market. Either way, the issues spring from capitalist systems, and so arguing that they're "really complaining about something else" strikes me as odd.
To reiterate my earlier point, it seems you're disagreeing with and/or confused about what I'm saying capitalism is. That's basically what I'm getting at. That "capitalism" isn't a safe word to just throw around and assume you're understood and listened to.
But I do understand those critiques of "capitalism" though generally they don't go so far as to refute any of the core aspects of capitalism. People aren't generally arguing to centralize the means of production. In fact, most of the critiques of "capitalism" is that production and consumption have become too centralized in the hands of private parties and corrupt officials. So barring government seizure of markets (labor, housing, etc.), the argument is mostly that we don't really have functioning markets. Which means the person who is anti-"capitalism" really wants a working capitalism.
Which all are fair points to make. It's just confusing throwing the "capitalism" word around, which is my point here.
That's called 'shooting the messenger'. It is not a good idea for those who want to be open to different opinions, a fact which actually can be gleaned from the linked article. If, as you say, 'everyone flags it as spam' it would be good for 'everyone' to read the linked article. That does not mean you need to agree to everything written there, by all means disagree but do so on the base of reason.
How can you discuss neo-Nazism or black supremacy without knowing what those terms actually mean? Again, this is once of the themes of the linked article: placing labels is not the same as understanding an issue. Reading about subjects you disagree with makes you a more knowledgeable and possibly even wiser person. It does not make you into whatever it was you read about.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
OP agrees and quotes Aristotle to that effect. But he still wrote and posted the article, right? So the purpose of the piece must be different, or at least more specific, than a trite "kids these days!" rant.
The post isn't trite in context since he was responsible for educating his particular audience. Complaining about generic kids these days is venting. Setting up ground rules for discussion to advance education is part of his job.
And, besides, his instruction is basically a critique of all the things (media, primary schools, undergraduate schools, parents, etc.) that should have been teaching those lessons but weren't. So he had to teach them not to "kids these days" but to people who were intelligent and educated enough to make it into law school.
Besides, part of his point was that dismissing old thoughts because they are old is bad reasoning. To dismiss his thoughts likewise because they're not new (I think they're a new spin on things, but YMMV) does ourselves a disservice.
True enough. All generations need this type of speech. For example, I first came across the term chronological snobbery reading C.S. Lewis, according to Wikipedia he used it in "Surprised by Joy" which was written 50 years ago. Since he coined the term to describe the thought patterns in his day, we can easily tell that generations before Millennials have also believed things because they were modern rather than because they were true. Different generations may sometimes have different weeds to pull, and I wish he describe his own biases which he overcame.
This piece is incoherent "campus loonies" outrage, pushing "diversity of opinion" talking points (while unintentionally demolishing it in a paragraph), demonstrating a surface-level understanding of issues (grouping "cisgenderism" with "racism"), and ultimately going for really silly "logical gotchas" instead of pointing out the importance of arguing soundly for your ideals.
Do you have any substantive and specific criticisms of it?
For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter, why "logical gotchas" are bad)?
What you have written here is basically just name calling.
> For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. [...] So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself.
This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality (as satirized in Harrison Bergeron) instead of social equity.
> if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality
Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire literal equality.
I disagree. The text was trying to get students to think rationally, be open to contrary ideas, and to use logic and argument to examine and discuss ideas.
I don't want to say that this is only a millennial issue, as I've seen sloppy thinking in people from multiple generations, but what he's addressing are very much tactics millennials are in the habit of using to shut down a discussion (using isms to bypass clearly expressing or thinking of an issue, using feelings to avoid being proven wrong, a lack of belief in absolute truths, etc).
Clear critical thinking is important, and requires skills that don't always just show up by default, and this is just done of the current cultural issues that get in the way of that.
Edit: having read your response to the other comment, I think the whole diversity and equality thing is coming from a millennial belief in ideals that must be shown and proven to be ultimates.
Virtue is one, and every generation seems to value a different subset of virtues. Like the Romans valued honor, courage and strength, only valuing those still lead to a lot of things that go against other virtues.
I agree the argument made in the article isn't the best one, but I believe it was aimed at the students who have never even questioned those terms, and they definitely exist.
I only quickly skimmed the article, but it seemed to mainly be about understanding and engaging seriously with ideas (even if you disagree), thinking critically, being open to new ways of looking at things, and so on. That seems like a very reasonable message to me, and something that politically active younger adults could definitely benefit from.
We all need to wrestle with and face the limits of our own understanding at some point, if we wish to grow.
24 comments
[ 0.33 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] threadI agree with the impulse here, but I wouldn't give those words a pass so quickly. Some (all?) of them are poorly understood.
Even here on HN, a potential bastion of reason, and presumably populated mostly by products of education in capitalist countries, I routinely come across anti-"capitalist" sentiment that is really complaining about something else: cronyism, regulatory capture, non-violent extortion, etc.
From wikipedia:
"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Go google "site:ycombinator.com capitalist". All sorts of nonsense HN comments show up in which people object to capitalism but aren't clearly criticizing wages, prices, private contracts, private property, etc.
I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction mechanism for that.
If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with. Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.
My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending it are rarely talking about the same thing. I have seen people defending capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are referring to the canonical definitions. I have seen, though less frequently, people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages, property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).
But I do understand those critiques of "capitalism" though generally they don't go so far as to refute any of the core aspects of capitalism. People aren't generally arguing to centralize the means of production. In fact, most of the critiques of "capitalism" is that production and consumption have become too centralized in the hands of private parties and corrupt officials. So barring government seizure of markets (labor, housing, etc.), the argument is mostly that we don't really have functioning markets. Which means the person who is anti-"capitalism" really wants a working capitalism.
Which all are fair points to make. It's just confusing throwing the "capitalism" word around, which is my point here.
Someone on r/boston constantly posts links to this garbage "news" source, everyone flags it as spam there, I'm going to flag it as spam here as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
OP agrees and quotes Aristotle to that effect. But he still wrote and posted the article, right? So the purpose of the piece must be different, or at least more specific, than a trite "kids these days!" rant.
And, besides, his instruction is basically a critique of all the things (media, primary schools, undergraduate schools, parents, etc.) that should have been teaching those lessons but weren't. So he had to teach them not to "kids these days" but to people who were intelligent and educated enough to make it into law school.
Besides, part of his point was that dismissing old thoughts because they are old is bad reasoning. To dismiss his thoughts likewise because they're not new (I think they're a new spin on things, but YMMV) does ourselves a disservice.
Do you have any substantive and specific criticisms of it?
For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter, why "logical gotchas" are bad)?
What you have written here is basically just name calling.
This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality (as satirized in Harrison Bergeron) instead of social equity.
Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire literal equality.
I don't want to say that this is only a millennial issue, as I've seen sloppy thinking in people from multiple generations, but what he's addressing are very much tactics millennials are in the habit of using to shut down a discussion (using isms to bypass clearly expressing or thinking of an issue, using feelings to avoid being proven wrong, a lack of belief in absolute truths, etc).
Clear critical thinking is important, and requires skills that don't always just show up by default, and this is just done of the current cultural issues that get in the way of that.
Edit: having read your response to the other comment, I think the whole diversity and equality thing is coming from a millennial belief in ideals that must be shown and proven to be ultimates.
Virtue is one, and every generation seems to value a different subset of virtues. Like the Romans valued honor, courage and strength, only valuing those still lead to a lot of things that go against other virtues.
I agree the argument made in the article isn't the best one, but I believe it was aimed at the students who have never even questioned those terms, and they definitely exist.
We all need to wrestle with and face the limits of our own understanding at some point, if we wish to grow.