E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#191

Post by el_nahual » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

A lot of comments make the argument that any extreme political correctness is exclusive to the bay area, not the US as a whole, or that Sam's experience is true in an "expat bubble" in China.

To which I submit as evidence "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World", an art exhibition currently on display at the Guggenheim in New York City.

This retrospective of Chinese art had 3(!) works of art removed (ie, censored) from the exhibition because the content was perceived as morally reprehensible by some groups of new york animal rights activists.

Proof that at least along some avenues of discourse (what is allowed in art? when is animal suffering allowed? when is representation of a disturbing act that occurred in the past allowed?) the NYC progressive contingent is more conservative than the Chinese.

Note: This does not mean that China is a paradise of free speech. There are other avenues of discourse (ex political discourse) where this is not the case.

Note 2: They sell hot dogs outside the Guggenheim.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/26/guggenh...

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#192

Post by kneath » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

The most powerful man on earth, Pope Paul V demanded Galileo silence his thoughts on heliocentrism. He was then submitted to the Roman Inquisition, found guilty, and imprisoned for the rest of his life. Somehow this is seen as comparable in Sam's mind to a reasonable debate about ethics (“If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical”).

Quite frankly, if you can't find the courage to have a reasonable debate about your ideas, you shouldn't be the one working on those ideas. If your ideas run contrary to public thoughts around ethics, perhaps you should move to a culture where your ethics more closely mirror theirs. Or more radically — listen to why people disagree!

This whole post comes off as someone who's realizing their ethics are mismatched with the culture they're living in, and instead of questioning themselves, demand that the rest of the culture shift to their views. In other words: let me be this asshole, because I deserve it!

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#193

Post by ak_yo » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

alien_at_work wrote: post #141

ak_yo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me. It's not that you can…

>How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? So everyone needs to ensure they hold no oppinions you might find offensive or be homeless? It goes both ways: how am I supposed to work with someone who thinks it's ok to ostracize people for personal beliefs?

I agree, we're making the same general point -- it does seem crazy to ask someone to "ensure they hold no offensive opinions". So why, for example, should the opinions of the person who wants to speak their mind about the immorality of gay marriage get precedence over the opinions of the person who thinks they should be allowed to get married?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#194

Post by Avshalom » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #91

ak_yo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this: A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conver…

You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.

You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody.

And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#195

Post by jedharris » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

igor47 wrote: post #131

psyc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.

Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I would have been 100% onboard

Why is Twitter the problem if a company fires an employee.

If I can just ignore Twitter (and I do) then Twitter mobs don't directly affect me. But if my management does things because of Twitter mobs (or anything else like that) we have a big problem.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#196

Post by alien_at_work » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #110

alien_at_work wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the envi…

>How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad". Well the jail comparison is really far away. The boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. >No, he's asking not to be criticized for his…

>Well the jail comparison is really far away.

People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail?

>boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me.

You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion get to ruin someones business and/or career? I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now. If the person is behaving objectively unethically, that's one thing but this is not at all settled.

>Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh?

Yes, when you become a voting block and start outlawing thought, as is already happening. It's distasteful thought at the moment, but this entire discussion shows that things that are potentially great can be targetted.

>Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group.

Not in the case of life extention. The objections are based on people assuming the worst possible case there but the evidence I see suggests the opposite.

>The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it?

Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.

>Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.

When is shut down when you start off by claiming anyone who believes what you saying is unethical. Do people not understand how to think anymore?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#197

Post by creaghpatr » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #155

throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

As if southerners aren't constantly cursing or making fun of "San Francisco values".

People in the south don't think about San Francisco at all. Only the Fox News anchors based in New York but charged with representing the politics of the south care about San Francisco.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#198

Post by rrdharan » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #29

California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember. Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.

Exactly why I moved to NYC after 10 years in the Mission.

It’s an elegant way to avoid dominant cliques, tribalism, etc. of which I already had my fill. No one can truly own or define the Culture or the Right Way to live in New York, it’s simply too big and too diverse for that.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#199

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

youdontknowtho wrote: post #35

jstanley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

I keep hearing that from people saying things like... "I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days. Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if…

Definitely, some ideas should fall out of the Overton window, and I'm glad that they do, even if there should be any truth to them (e.g., re: possible genetic inferiority/superiority of some groups -- whether true or not, it falls outside the window today, and that's a very very good thing).

I disagree as to inequality. You just can't get equality; get over it. But life extension can still be problematic. E.g., life extension w/o extension of working years is a tremendous burden on everyone else, especially if such life extension is/becomes low-cost, and the only way out is to automate more and more so that we might provide for enormous elderly populations. On the other hand, we'll end up automating as much as possible, so it may be that this is a non-issue. Life extension w/ extension of working years would certainly be better. Another issue is whether we can correspondingly extend fertility years, otherwise we might risk negative population growth (which might or might not be a good thing anyways).

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#200

Post by JulianRaphael » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:36 PM UTC

Solid post and long due.

However, judging from a recent Y Combinator post (https://blog.ycombinator.com/13-startup-ideas/) on 13 startup ideas from YC alumni and staff for startup ideas that they wish would exist, Sam should start right in front of his own door regarding "working on less ideas for the 1%".