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

351–360 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#351

Post by cortesoft »

I get really frustrated with this constant refrain that every idea needs to be responded to on its merits, and you aren't allowed to EVER just dismiss an idea.

While this sounds good in theory, in practice you have to draw the line somewhere. Do I need to engage in a debate about whether the earth is flat or not every time someone says it is flat? Am I not allowed to just dismiss the idea and say 'this is not something that is up to debate'?

Not all ideas are worthy of discussion, and someties you have to tell the people constantly proposing ideas that we have addressed before to knock it off.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#352

Post by bambax »

dmode wrote: post #274

I have no idea what this article was about. As someone who grew up in India, lived extensively in Europe and Arizona before settling down in the Bay Area, and travel to China 2-3 times a year, I find Bay Area by far to be the most open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived. And it is not even comparable. And it is borne out by simple stats. People vote with their feet. Bay Area is almost a majority minority a…

Yes, but in Beijing, you see, you can discuss radical life extension with fellow Chinese billionaires. That really changes everything. /s

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#353

Post by munificent »

CPLX wrote: post #290
btilly wrote: post #147

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html is very relevant about how we got here. As Paul Graham said then, the biggest threats to free thought and speech come from people who have just enough power to enforce taboos, and not enough to be confident in their power. In this case the political ideology that is stifling thought is one that has nationwide lost Congress, the Senate and the Presidency. Which naturally results in a…

> The result is, as I've heard it put, Liberals are tolerant of anything except being conservative. That's a clever slogan. But the logical response to that would be to say that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance. Which as a factual statement is of course arguable, but as a premise is certainly internally consistent.

    > as a premise is certainly internally consistent.
Karl Popper argued that, in fact, that exact rule is not just consistent but necessary for tolerance to exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#354

Post by alehul »

dmode wrote: post #274

I have no idea what this article was about. As someone who grew up in India, lived extensively in Europe and Arizona before settling down in the Bay Area, and travel to China 2-3 times a year, I find Bay Area by far to be the most open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived. And it is not even comparable. And it is borne out by simple stats. People vote with their feet. Bay Area is almost a majority minority a…

You're absolutely right that the Bay Area offers more freedom than India or China in terms of safely espousing your views. In our lack of government-imposed restrictions, however, we've come to restrict ourselves as a society, and many believe that we've taken these restrictions too far.

America has progressed through openness to ideological diversity, and through healthily engaging in debate. We're lucky that those who have created/promoted controversial technologies and ideas have been able to so legally, but what is it worth if they're never engaged with? What is all of our ethnic diversity worth if everyone, full of unique perspectives, is forced to tiptoe around most subjects?

It's great to have freedom of speech, but its societal value is substantially diminished when we aren't willing to communicate with the people it protects.

> UK allowed one Egyptian preacher to openly preach hatred and violence

As a side note, our freedom of speech in the US is more hard-wired and extensive than that of the UK, and even we don't allow speech that directly incites violence.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#355

Post by xster »

btilly wrote: post #147

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html is very relevant about how we got here. As Paul Graham said then, the biggest threats to free thought and speech come from people who have just enough power to enforce taboos, and not enough to be confident in their power. In this case the political ideology that is stifling thought is one that has nationwide lost Congress, the Senate and the Presidency. Which naturally results in a…

> Liberals are tolerant of anything except being conservative

As a non-American liberal, I'd argue 'liberals' are tolerant of anything except non-American liberals.

Try bringing up progressive topics in polite company and see how long you can last before becoming a conspiracy theorist / radical.

You agree with every UN member countries wrt Palestine/Israel except 2? Oh, we don't talk about that here. You want to support grassroots primary caucus delegate? Nevada primary co-chairs were expelled from the causes they were chairing for trespassing. You want more than 2 corporate parties? Jill Stein was handcuffed to a chair for hours for attempting to enter the televised presidential debate venue. You're anti war? You must be a Russian spy or literally Hitler for not opposing strawman foreign governments who resist trading oil in petro-dollars.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#356

Post by bambax »

mundo wrote: post #350
bambax wrote: post #349

Disappointing salad of ideas. Apparently I should be allowed to say that gay people are evil, but not that radical life extension is a really really bad and yes, in my opinion, truly evil and selfish idea. Should I be allowed to profess that humanity would be happier and less taxing on the planet if there were less of us? And should I be able to research methods to sterilize most people, and seek funding to experimen…

The essay was not so much against "life extension is bad" as against "people who think life extension is good are bad."

Fair point, but some ideas reflect on who expresses them. If you think gay people are evil, it says something about you (usually, not good). I think the same is true about life extension.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#357

Post by workthrowaway27 »

geofft wrote: post #116
workthrowaway27 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this list and go to the most recent years: https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/ When the list started it was fairly evenly distributed between right and left leaning speakers being disinvited. Now it's much more commonly right leaning speakers.

That's about speakers being disinvited from campus, not views not being represented. There are a number of problems with that analysis: 1. Several speakers are overrepresented (I see a bunch of Milo invitations), which could well just reflect their aggressiveness at getting themselves invited / the strength of their own PR team. If one political side wants to make persecution their thing, they'll show up more commonl…

It's true that some speakers are over-represented, but I don't think that changes the trend substantially. I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between disinviting speakers and censoring the ideas they came to talk about.

And yes, there are new forums for dissemination of ideas, but that doesn't mean they are equally open to all ideas. Some things you can't write without being shouted down. This is distinct from criticism of the idea. These are personal attacks on the person who voiced the idea in the first place.

I don't understand your last point. There are absolutely things you can't talk about freely at universities, for example: immigration, gender differences in personality, variations in IQ across races, etc. I don't see how you can take an objective look at university culture and say anything otherwise.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#358

Post by ScottBurson »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #322
SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you associating those douchebags with the south? Newt I get, but aren't the rest of them in NYC? The real divide in this country is rural vs. urban. Cities in the south are plenty progressive, and rural areas in the rest of the country are plenty conservative. I've lived in Boston and Atlanta, and Atlanta is a much more tolerant, friendly place.

>I've lived in Boston and Atlanta, and Atlanta is a much more tolerant, friendly place. Care to say what you experienced in Boston?

It's been 35 years since I lived in the Boston area, so this may have changed some -- I certainly hope it has! -- but the ethnic animosities there shocked me, as someone who moved there from the DC area and had the idea that Northern cities would be more tolerant. I moved into an apartment in East Cambridge in 1982, in what was, unbeknownst to me before I got there, a Polish neighborhood, only to learn that a few weeks earlier, a Black residence on the same street had been firebombed.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#359

Post by teekert »

dsr_ wrote: post #137
teekert wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you see," said Roark quietly, "I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no…

They all stood on the shoulders of giants, who were themselves part of huge and ancient communities of people working together.

Sometimes, sure. But sometimes it takes years of effort and loneliness, that is at least where the "and yet it moves" quote comes from. I my mind at least, Galilei was alone, with unpopular, dangerous views, against a huge number of people with another opinion. It is what the piece is about, it is what the Fountainhead is about.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#360

Post by kbenson »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #297
kbenson wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just classified a statement that includes "probably" as absolutist. Perhaps you should reexamine it and consider whether your own context is causing you to interpret it slightly differently than intended.

You can't just throw 'probably' in clearly inflammatory statements and expect the reader to pick up the burden of proof.

And yet I don't think it's clearly inflammatory. Again, perhaps what you are interpreting as clearly inflammatory was meant to express something other than that.

Of course, this could all be cleared up if you actually explained what you thought was so horrible about the original comment. So far you've called it "absolutist" and "clearly inflammatory" but not actually explained why you think so. Obviously, at least one person disagrees, so perhaps backing up your statements with your reasoning would help.

Post reply on HN