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

It's here used as shorthand for "not merely a social illusion constructed by the person it is acting upon"

Some power derives from charisma, force of personality, or social fluency. But lots of power, from the perspective of the people it is acting on, derives from or relies on nothing of the sort, and merely requires that consequences can be enacted for failure to cooperate with the power dynamic at play

This narrative is not insignificant. A lot of powerful people love to tell a story where power is just a personal competency, and consequently, that anyone's lack of power in any circumstance is, as the gamers say, a skill issue




A single person, by definition, can't construct a social illusion. "Social" requires a society, which means at the very least two people. "A social illusion constructed by the person it is acting upon" is nonsense.

We could call a language a social illusion. There's nothing red about the word red. And the distinction we draw between "earth" and "sky" is not one that the universe appears to use in its operation. Language does, however, require us to negotiate symbols, their meanings, and the consequences stemming from them. Like in how I rejected your definition of "official" with a rationale which you may attempt to overcome, accommodate... or just walk away from. And like in how we have structured our interactions so far as a contest of truths with bold and uncompromising assertions, when the option remains available to switch to a search for truth with tentative and attackable statements.

It's exactly with the same with governments and other organizations, all based on language as they are. We make them up. We make up rules for making them up. Occasionally someone hits someone else with a big stick. But although the stick is real, the reasons why we do things, and the reasons why we believe we can do things with these consequences or those, are things we all work together or in opposition to establish. "Official" included.


Dang we sure are getting hung up on semantics rather than substance today, huh?


I'm not sure whether or not I agree with what you're saying, but I will offer that Punish The Contrarian is the most popular free-to-play MMORPG game online, because all players who choose the Punisher role start with a free +1 point bonus against those who don't, so it feels like one is winning simply by showing up to play.


I'm not really sure who is supposed to be the contrarian in this particular instance of that game in your view, but here I feel that this person neither is trying to punish me for contrary views or express any of their own, but is merely repeatedly nitpicking my phrasing without engaging with the substance of the comments they're replying to, a widespread mode of argumentation that I find as annoying as it is vapid


that behavior is indeed what i call Punish the Contrarian. As opposed to, eg, engage with the contrarian or debate the contrarian. This nitpicking tactic is not an argument at all but just an attempt to discourage the target from future attempts to present their position by exhausting their motivation to articulate it.


Ah, that makes sense. I'm pretty sure it's all a lot of internet denizens can manage on difficult topics so I've met it frequently enough to find it merely annoying rather than exhausting. It's occasionally fun to use it to force myself to think through a position in more detail, but I know I can just ignore it and walk away if I can't spare the time. It's no substitute for an actual conversation with a thoughtful person of course, but it can be a useful exercise. Kind of the predecessor to talking to chatbots. Hell, these days I'm sure a lot of them are using chatbots




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

Search: