> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
News like this makes my blood boil.
Children are a societies most precious resource. They should be protected at all costs, even if some scientific progress is missed along the way.
The religion of science is as insane as other religions known for problems with pedophilia.
I heard a story that people were supposed to be processing units, but someone (the producers maybe?) thought it's too hard to understand. A minor modification that makes the movie enjoyable again IMHO.
The version I read many years back from what I recall to be a fairly reliable source is “test audiences”, though I can't find hard confirmation of that noe (lots of unsourced internet comments that agree, but...)
I mean, you can probably manufacture it, but naturally forming coal doesn't happen anymore due to bacterium and fungi that break down plant matter before it can be coalified. Not a renewable resource in the common usage of the term.
(from the article) "Helmut Kentler, had been one of the most influential sexologists in Germany..."
Does this profession have any remaining dignity for this article to damage? I have an exceedingly low opinion of the institution that is social science, and the academic institutions that support it.
> In 1960, Kentler got a degree in psychology, a field that allowed him to be “an engineer in the realm of the . . . manipulatable soul,” he said at a lecture.
I see no reason to believe that the academic institutions that persist these institution do not all see themselves in this role as an "engineer in the realm of the manipulatable soul". They ostensibly exist solely for propagandistic purposes, pushing an agenda of leftist orthodoxy.
We've banned this account for trolling. 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://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> I have an exceedingly low opinion of the institution that is social science
Obviously you don't mean social sciences, but psychology and sub-disciplines (or i hope you do).
> They ostensibly exist solely for propagandistic purposes, pushing an agenda of leftist orthodoxy.
Psychology? Not really, did you work, or do anyone you know work with publicists, or in the moviemaking field?
I think you have a really biaised idea of the psychology field.
For the "leftist orthodoxy" part, i think you're talking about determinism (and indeed this is a founding idea of the orthodox left, and one that the liberal left use but avoid thinking about, as it destroy the idea than merit have anything to do with success, and bourgeois have issues with this idea usually).
Determinism is closely related with sociology and philosophy (maybe that's what you mean when you talk about social science?). The "There is no free will" advocates are taking determinism to its extreme (and have a narrow view of the meaning of "free will" for the overall population) and can rattle people. But i think the reason you don't like this is because of this association: the largest contributor to the sociology field when talking about determinism is Bourdieu, who inspired Foucault and Deleuze. Who inspired the postmodern "french theory" (english term, quite reductive tbh), the term "deconstruction" and are at the centerpoint of the postmodern "gender studies" and "decolonialism". Which are at least controversial and unscientific as it can be, closer to philosophy than sociology but still claiming to be the later.
But you can't throw everything in one block. Without this idea of determinism and deconstruction, linguistic and history would be miles behind (and maybe other social sciences too, but those two i take interest in). If you're right-wing, you can even claim that Furet and disciples deconstructed the polite, unchallenged global view of the French revolution before any postmodern historian, and that's why the field advanced as much this last decades.
Appalling. I think we need to examine the types of social structures that can be exploited to allow situations like this to happen.
For example it seems to me that it's too easy for people near the top of hierarchical structures to enable and abet all sorts of abuses. In a way, this sexologist created his own hierarchy within a larger structure, which enabled him to avoid oversight.
> I think we need to examine the types of social structures that can be exploited to allow situations like this to happen.
The article attributed this type of thing happening under the guise of "preventing fascism", which is very understandable for post-WW2 Germans. Kentler claimed that fascism was caused by repressed sexual desires. Therefore, de-stigmatizing all forms of sexual desires, even pedophilia, would prevent another Holocaust.
In that sense, this wasn't the result of social structures per se, but unique to that period of German history.
Adoptions an foster care should be illegal as it invariably attracts various creeps trying to get hold of someone else's children and abuse them. If you cannot have your own children, you are already defective in some way and you better not impose your damage on others.
32 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 69.1 ms ] threadSource: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This particular one is shocking and sad, I probably won’t be able to sleep at night at his angering it is.
The religion of science is as insane as other religions known for problems with pedophilia.
The version I read many years back from what I recall to be a fairly reliable source is “test audiences”, though I can't find hard confirmation of that noe (lots of unsourced internet comments that agree, but...)
Coal is renewable, its just historically been consumed at a rate far beyond what is sustainable.
“I’m afraid to ask what came in eighth.”
“Carbon paper.”
Does this profession have any remaining dignity for this article to damage? I have an exceedingly low opinion of the institution that is social science, and the academic institutions that support it.
> In 1960, Kentler got a degree in psychology, a field that allowed him to be “an engineer in the realm of the . . . manipulatable soul,” he said at a lecture.
I see no reason to believe that the academic institutions that persist these institution do not all see themselves in this role as an "engineer in the realm of the manipulatable soul". They ostensibly exist solely for propagandistic purposes, pushing an agenda of leftist orthodoxy.
Obviously you don't mean social sciences, but psychology and sub-disciplines (or i hope you do).
> They ostensibly exist solely for propagandistic purposes, pushing an agenda of leftist orthodoxy.
Psychology? Not really, did you work, or do anyone you know work with publicists, or in the moviemaking field?
I think you have a really biaised idea of the psychology field.
For the "leftist orthodoxy" part, i think you're talking about determinism (and indeed this is a founding idea of the orthodox left, and one that the liberal left use but avoid thinking about, as it destroy the idea than merit have anything to do with success, and bourgeois have issues with this idea usually).
Determinism is closely related with sociology and philosophy (maybe that's what you mean when you talk about social science?). The "There is no free will" advocates are taking determinism to its extreme (and have a narrow view of the meaning of "free will" for the overall population) and can rattle people. But i think the reason you don't like this is because of this association: the largest contributor to the sociology field when talking about determinism is Bourdieu, who inspired Foucault and Deleuze. Who inspired the postmodern "french theory" (english term, quite reductive tbh), the term "deconstruction" and are at the centerpoint of the postmodern "gender studies" and "decolonialism". Which are at least controversial and unscientific as it can be, closer to philosophy than sociology but still claiming to be the later.
But you can't throw everything in one block. Without this idea of determinism and deconstruction, linguistic and history would be miles behind (and maybe other social sciences too, but those two i take interest in). If you're right-wing, you can even claim that Furet and disciples deconstructed the polite, unchallenged global view of the French revolution before any postmodern historian, and that's why the field advanced as much this last decades.
For example it seems to me that it's too easy for people near the top of hierarchical structures to enable and abet all sorts of abuses. In a way, this sexologist created his own hierarchy within a larger structure, which enabled him to avoid oversight.
"Trust but verify" should be baked into every public power structure; with an emphasis on the "verify" part being game-able and constantly evolving.
The article attributed this type of thing happening under the guise of "preventing fascism", which is very understandable for post-WW2 Germans. Kentler claimed that fascism was caused by repressed sexual desires. Therefore, de-stigmatizing all forms of sexual desires, even pedophilia, would prevent another Holocaust.
In that sense, this wasn't the result of social structures per se, but unique to that period of German history.