Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#201

Post by alien_at_work »

ak_yo wrote: post #193
alien_at_work wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I agree with that. "Don't go around pissing off co-workers" is a sensible rule. But it's also our responsibility to not look for reasons to be offended. If you ask me about something I'm not going to lie. But I'm not going to shove it in your face either, if I think it might offend.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#202

Post by nostromo »

workthrowaway27 wrote: post #21

I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.

It's interesting that the word "liberal" has morphed so much in America to mean the opposite of its original meaning.

Liberalism is rooted in liberty and freedom, and yet here we are in 2017 discussing how non-"liberal" ideas cannot be freely expressed in the most "liberal" cities.

I say we stop calling these people liberal, because they're anything but.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#203

Post by librvf »

Avshalom wrote: post #194
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.

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?

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

Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.

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

If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#204

Post by slededit »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #129
slededit wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the old days it was thought that only the implementation of an idea could cause harm. The only evidence I've seen presented that the idea itself is harmful rests upon an assumption it will obviously be implemented or you wouldn't be thinking about it. It's aenthema to a free thinker.

Fair fair but to be clear the one example in this article is calling someone unethical who is working to implement an idea. "people working on this must be really unethical"

It is not clear or obvious that allowing people to live longer is unethical. Resorting inmediately to an ad hominem is not an appropriate form of debate.

No individual has a moral obligation to debate ideas. However if debate is shut down with fallacious arguments it limits the ability for the idea to progress.

If this happens too often then progress will be slowed. That is the point of this post.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#205

Post by xocyabencl »

angersock wrote: post #179
xocyabencl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain your last paragraph further? Obviously saying you agree with something you never read is a bad idea. Since you haven't read it, you don't know how bad it is, right? For all you know it could be Mein Kampf. Or it could just say your boss is an idiot, or that working at your company is a waste of time, etc. Especially as a knowledge worker, ideas you espouse at work could affect your employability, so y…

> We aren't a bunch of robots - our productivity is influenced by what our colleagues say. Indeed! That's why it's so concerning to some of us that our colleagues are apparently children who blindly parrot misinterpretations of source material and call for blood over their own fabricated outrage.

I think we're on the same page here - you shouldn't claim to know the content of something you never read.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#206

Post by nine_k »

One of the things often overlooked is how our (American) culture is very much driven by religion. Note that the religion is not necessarily some version of Christianity. The overwhelming religious movement rarely named could be called "progressivism".

A religion, as opposed to other forms, usually has postulates you may not doubt, words you may not say, etc. That is, it constraints rational approaches in the area of what's sacred for that religion.

Well, I don't mind religious people. People are free to believe and practice what they believe — as long as they do it without pressing other people into compliance.

And this is exactly what happens. Faithful people who see something from the list of "progressive" sacred cows being discussed, especially at some critical / unorthodox angle (as opposed to praised in a canonical form), become furious: it's a sacrilege!

Now Mr. Altman notices that SF tech circles have turned into something of a Mecca (or Constantinople) of "progressivism", and raising a voice against the predominant religious views becomes unwelcome and downright dangerous. Well, yes. Sorry about that. Maybe you've been noticing signs of it for a few decades already.

The irony is, of course, is that "progressivism" often writes "reason" or "science" on its banners. I suspect the more ardent adepts will notice the discrepancy and suggest to remove them soon.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#207

Post by BadassFractal »

robinsloan wrote: post #188
BadassFractal wrote: post #10

Thank you Sam for speaking out about this. Every few months living in the Bay reminds me of the importance of Paul Graham's http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html . The constant pursuit of ideological purity in the Bay, the desire for diversity of skin tones and orientations, but not of ideas, taking offense as a viable way of establishing social hierarchies. It's all very tiring.

This doesn't describe my experience of the Bay Area (2004-present) at all. Here's a sincere tip: start attending the Seminars About Long-term Thinking organized by the Long Now Foundation. Take a friend or two. Sitting in those (packed!) theaters, listening to big, bold, and really very challenging ideas -- not just presented and left at that, but also opened up and interrogated -- I really don't think you'll feel yo…

If you're going to that sort of event, you're intentionally going out of your way to be around people who are interested in, as you said, big, bold, and challenging ideas.

The issue is that the next day, when you're back to your 9to5 at BigCo (or even a random startup in the area), you are not back among people who support authoritarianism and will shoot you down (possibly getting you fired) for not having the same viewpoint as they do.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#208

Post by CalChris »

SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #181
guelo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're really not.

Oh please. Y'all campaign against San Francisco values. Pelosi is basically a code word for it even though she's from a Baltimore political dynasty.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=644311...

San Francisco values gets repeated by Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, ... at every opportunity. Sorry to link to Breitbart, but here's Roy Moore ranting on about San Francisco.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/03/hes-said-...

Who exactly is he ranting to?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#209

Post by longerthoughts »

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?

And it is your right not to work with that person, whether that means you choosing to leave or take internal action depending on circumstances (e.g. threats). However, who is entirely exempt from ostracizing others for their beliefs? For every person there is some universe of beliefs that are seen as such a threat to their reality, principles, or well-being that they will fight those beliefs and their representatives. That universe of beliefs may differ in size or relative merit on the basis of evidence for each person, but it exists.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#210

Post by jedharris »

ak_yo wrote: post #32
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #7

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

I think you're exactly right. His argument is completely self-defeating: it's a perfect example of shutting down criticism on the basis of tone. He's just dismissing critique out of hand (because it's "politically correct") without actually engaging with its substance.

The people involved felt they had to leave town. That's pretty substantial.
Post reply on HN