Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The thing about the situation is that you ideas accepted by the mainstream, that may or may not be true (I have more faith in physics than experimental psychology).

Then you have ideas which contradict this mainstream, "alternative approach" or whatever you want to call them. Some of these might be true. Speaking rough, an alternative approach that has a constituency becomes that constituency publicizes it anyway and the mainstream dissents.

Those constituency will naturally be the ones publishing those dissident ideas. And they should have a right to publish them and make them available. IE, it seems as if there'd be no reason to publish X just because it's controversial, if X is controversial, it has proponents and they can be the ones publishing it, not because it's controversial but because they believe it.

The thing is, there's a certain kind of position where the constituency doesn't want to be too identified with the ideas even if they hold them - usually ideas considered "hateful", a common example is racist positions and related opinions. Here, "I'm put this out because it's controversial, not because I believe it" is a common trope and I find it disingenuous.



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

Search: