Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A lot of philisophical points like this took a long time to develop (universal suffrage). Even if it seems "obvious" today, most people are just parroting what they've been taught and don't give it much consideration.

Why don't you use the opportunity to address the points intellectually rather than silently thinking they are wrong?

First of all, the statements are very different. One of your acquaintences advocated prohibition, while the other merely opined that the overall results were negative without supporting prohibition.

What are the dangers in each position? How do the arguments apply to other questions, like voting age? How do the arguments apply to other groups, like citizens/noncitizens or felons/nonfelons?

I'm not an expert here, but I know there are some tough questions here that you might find difficult to answer. And then you might better understand how someone might hold a misguided position.

Really, most peoples' thinking is muddled on these issues because they haven't studied them. The only thing that keeps most people from saying such things is politocal correctness.




>"most people are just parroting what they've been taught and don't give it much consideration"

Careful here. This can be said about the other side as well to parrot news stations, media outlets and propaganda. This is surely no way to address such a situation - it is one-sided and judgmental. You need to open-minded if you want to hold such a difficult conversation.


I include myself in the group "most people". I believe in a lot of modern liberal (in the freedom sense) ideas, but I don't think I could win a debate about them.

Basically I just believe the modern liberal ideas because they sound right to me and I haven't heard any serious rebuttal. "Parroting" might be a bit harsh, but only a bit.


I think the key to what we call political correctness is having the common assumption or axiom that all humans are just as human and not fundamentally different in any significant way.

As an individual you may not hold this belief in your heart, you may feel that some types of people are more or less qualified for certain tasks but when you start having a political discussion it is pragmatic for all parties to accept the previously mentioned axiom.

Some individuals are so firm in their beliefs that they refuse to accept the 'politically correct' viewpoint and so they devolve the discussion with arguments based on assumptions that make discrimination a foregone conclusion. Thankfully most people differ in the way they are politically incorrect so they feel that other peoples discriminatory assumptions are faulty, however, echo chambers...


I am confused. Why are you defining "political correctness" in that way?


it was just a placeholder phrase for the concept I wanted to point out.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: