We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13953821 and marked it off-topic.

If the topic was useless, shouldn't you be detaching at the parent of the thread (which wasn't me)?

I'd like you to optimize for the quality of the thread as a whole. You've been here for years and have more than enough information to do that.

Or is there some alternate option you are aware of which I am not? How would you propose that I make my point without resulting in eastwestmath becoming hostile?

Good faith means being willing to take some of the responsibility for these outcomes instead of putting 100% on everybody else and 0% on yourself. Self-responsibility is a conservative value and you generally espouse those, so that shouldn't be too hard.

But you don't want to. You want to smear the rest of us without actually getting your hands dirty.

This doesn't help us get anywhere apart from into groups that shout at each other.

However, we can verify that non-intellectual arguments in response to certain ideas are quite common here. Here is one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366

You can dig up more by reading my posting history, for example.

[1] I actually happen to have secret forbidden knowledge on politically incorrect factors in lending and educational performance. For example, I'd let you purchase a portfolio of consumer loans and then I'd use my secret knowledge about the predictive effect of race on defaults to buy the best ones for myself.

Did you ever perhaps consider that you are the one being non-intellectual? I see this tactic all the time on the right, people claiming they only want a "frank, honest discussion", but it seems words like "frank" "honest discussion" are so often code words for "a discussion where I can say anything I please no matter how nasty or offensive or how little I understand the issue, without any evidence, argument, or support, and nobody calls me out on it".

On slavery, I don't really know that anyone cares if it's economically beneficial, because it's morally disgusting -- its economic benefits are moot and pointless to discuss, since it's simply not an option for a civilized society. So by arguing in support of its benefits you are trying to lend credence to the idea that it should be instituted, which is why all the hate.

Or so the argument goes. I think the problem here is not with presenting a defense of its economic benefits, it's with the central neoliberal fallacy rather that suggests "good economically" == "good", or even suggests "good economically" is a thing that can exist and be defined without considering perspectives, e.g. "good economically for the owning class" whereas I'd argue the entire notion is nebulous and murky and undefinable, and even if it were not, wholly irrelevant to the issue since it's a moral one not an economic one.

Can you quote the piece of my comment that you believe is "mocking"?

I think you are engaging in the exact bias pavlov described. And again, you never answered my original question: do you believe that if I wrote "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...", an intellectual discussion would result?

I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind.

Your comment:

I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers).

"Mocking" was too harsh, so I apologize for saying that's what you were doing. But people generally don't like it when you quote them, then alter the quote.

In other words, there seems to be little reason to echo the parent by saying "I mean, don't get me wrong, ..." except to put everyone on the defensive. Why intentionally make it a "the world vs you" exchange? When it's a delicate topic, of course you have to bring it up tactfully.

If you're asking whether intellectual discussion will result if you don't bring it up tactfully, then I'd have to say no, it won't. But it's all about how you frame it.

Here's an alternate way to phrase the point:

"Flouting the law is also known as civil disobedience. What's the difference between, say, Rosa Parks doing it and Uber? Certainly the magnitude is different: the civil rights movement was much more important than breaking up a taxi monopoly. But was it a difference in degree, or in kind?"

I think an intellectual discussion would result from that. You'd get one or two replies along the lines of "If you can't see the difference between Rosa Parks and Uber, then I don't know what to say," but those can be ignored. People would be much more likely to engage with the point.

I was mainly hoping to see more examples of contrarian viewpoints, though.

Out of curiosity, if paraphrasing someone else's argument is so untactful, how come the paraphrased comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 is not the one downmodded?

People expressing mainstream views don't seem to be held to the same requirements of tactfullness.

Here's another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12695708

Here's one that was flagkilled and resurrected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12498776

>I'd gamble at 3:1 odds that I'd be downvoted and called racist.

Yeah, you would, so you would need to argue back. Is that so painful? And note there might be others who are not certain which side is correct, and might be persuaded by your arguments. Or they might be persuaded they are wrong. That is what open discussion is about, and it is the best system we have.

I do think you have one good point. That is that calling someone "racist" because they disagree with you on something is usually not helpful. It is better to just state points of disagreement.

And note there might be others who are not certain which side is correct, and might be persuaded by your arguments.

I'm aware. I actually receive a consistent flow of emails of the form "I'd never say this in public, but you made me rethink what I previously believed." That's because I'm willing to be called racist or whatever.

Most people aren't. It significantly hinders rational discussion.

The problem is that the distortion of your ethics and values would have to be so extreme to arrive at such a conclusion that anyone who read that sentence would know that you have an extremely "different" way of looking at the world, and not in a good way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

   distortion of your ethics

We also should always be aware that every serious discussion of slavery must begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery", for the term is used in wildly different ways.

But pondering further. If you have a successful revolt what do you believe the punishment for the perpetrators should be. Would death be a just punishment? What if the empowered slaves offered enslavement of their former masters as an alternative?

   Could you give examples of this.

   Would death be a just punishment?
   What if ...

The Haitian slave revolution of the late 18th, early 19th century lead to immediate genocide of the remaining whites and and mixed race inhabitants [2]. Haiti, which was once the wealthiest Caribbean island has been a basket case ever since.

Coincidentally, after the successful revolution, the black leadership reinstituted slavery, albeit symbolically abolishing the whip [3].

The Haitian slave rebellion teaches us a large number of lessons about humanity, most not very palatable.

[1] Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_clas...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republ...

We should be able to have a reasoned, intellectual discussion about the economic side of slavery whilst still agreeing it shouldn't be done.

I'd like to read arguments on both sides for the economic effects of, say, slavery in America. Did America benefit? If so, over what timescales? Were there benefits in the short term but the ongoing divisions now hurt the economy more? And I can wonder about these things while still not thinking it was good.

Of course, some people in this thread are probably ready to laud Hitler's economic acumen, while ignoring his economic gains were due to public spending building a war machine and taking Jewish people's stuff.

You're not allowed to comment like this on HN.

HN is one of those places where, as frustrating as it might be, the rules of discourse encourage thoughtful interchange. Here, we at least have the hope that we can be educated or enlightened, and in some cases we may be able to show others the errors in their thinking in a manner that doesn't close off communication.

Most arguments I can come up with are reasonably close to contemporary arguments for socialism or basic income. Do you consider those arguments (far more socially acceptable) to be similarly "messed up"?

(Note that most of those who have advocated for slavery in recent years, e.g Obama and Rangell, did so from a socialist perspective. Slaves would serve the state, either as "volunteers" for social programs or in the military. I'm not the only one who finds the cases to be pretty close.)

I appreciate you supporting my case.