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

361–370 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#361

Post by kazinator »

cortesoft wrote: post #333
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…

Well, another way of putting it is "Liberals are tolerant of anything except intolerance" If I want to be a tolerant and accepting person, do I have to accept someone who wants to deny a group of people to marry the person they love? Do I have to tolerate someone who wants to control a woman's body? This is similar to a love of freedom; I want everyone to have freedom, but that means having to restrict the freedom to…

> I have to accept someone who wants to deny a group of people to marry the person they love?

No, just their freedom to express that they don't like it.

Not grant them actual power to interfere in people's lives by implementing the denial.

> Do I have to tolerate someone who wants to control a woman's body?

We have to tolerate someone who expresses (in a non-harassing way) that it would be a good idea for them to do that; we shouldn't tolerate someone trying to instigate such control.

And I mean as a matter of public policy. Whatever you choose not to tolerate personally is up to you as long as your preferences aren't used as the basis for perpetrating discrimination.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#362

Post by Kalium »

alehul wrote: post #354
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…

With the caveat that "incitement" is quite carefully defined.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#363

Post by Houshalter »

dguaraglia wrote: post #318
conanbatt wrote: post #75

I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded. Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even more afraid. The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired if i publicly said i agreed…

The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of th…

Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.)

>they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.)

Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Democracy sort of works because we tolerate each other anyway. When political polarization increases too much, bad things happen.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#364

Post by beachy »

Diederich wrote: post #339

Shortly prior to the recent US presidential election, I worked next to a nice, smart young man from California who went to a well-known progressive university in the bay area. Politics was very rarely discussed at work, but in the weeks before the election, there was some cross talk in the isles. He trusted me enough to message me privately that he was planning to vote for Trump. At that time, I was quite anxious abo…

Leaning in from outside the US, the path forward is obvious.

"Progressives" should embrace guns and reject abortion.

That would make them palatable to these mysterious deplorables that seem to hold sway over the US political system, giving them access to the halls of power.

Then said progressives, having kept their powder dry, could expend it on what really matters - convincing the deplorables that science is a thing, and that climate change will kill us all if we don't act.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#365

Post by slg »

hsod wrote: post #314
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…

I think the use of the word "tolerance" here muddies things. To the extent that tolerance is a virtue, it refers to tolerating other people for what they are , not what they do . There are gray areas here of course, but there are plenty of places where that distinction is clear. I don't think political tolerance is inherently virtuous. If a coworker tells me they don't think women are suited for technical work then I…

I am reminded of an old quote from George Washington:

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1]

"Tolerance" has a clear power dynamic. One group allows another group to exist. It is therefore shouldn't be looked at as the ultimate goal of a just society. Instead we should simply ask that people are "good citizens."

Whether your coworker believes women don't make good tech workers should be irrelevant to you. What should matter is whether they are a good employee and whether their views manifest themselves in anyway that hurts anyone else (e.g. they should not be in a position to supervise other employees if they can't prevent their beliefs from harming those employees)

[1] - https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-...

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#366

Post by dang »

CalChris wrote: post #208
SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.breitb…

> Oh please. Y'all

Please don't personalize or (so to speak) group-ize this here. I know the feelings are strong, but this temptation needs to be resisted because it leads to battle, which is incompatible with thoughtful exchange. You did it again downthread ("you" vs. "we") and it strikes me as no coincidence that this subthread is by far the worst of the ones I've scrolled through so far. Which I'm sure is not your intent and is definitely not all your responsibility—it's just that things predictably happen this way, given such initial conditions.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#367

Post by slededit »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #219
slededit wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the argument isn't fallacious and it's not an ad hom... Extending life expectancy will increase human population and harm our environment and that harm to the environment will harm future generations so individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations and that's unethical which makes them unethical. You can disagree with the argument but it's not fallacious.

By that argument all medical care is unethical.

Regardless ideas need to be discussed divorced from the people presenting them. Medical care is no more or less ethical because Hitler is making the argument.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#368

Post by jdtang13 »

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…

In America, you can criticize the government but cannot talk at all about controversial social issues. Many Americans abide by the rule: "do not talk about politics and religion among polite company." I've known people who have legitimately ended friendships over political opinions. Such a thing is almost unheard of in China.

In China, you cannot criticize the government but you can talk all day about social issues, and you will actually hear a diverse range of different opinions on hot-button issues. I've heard all sorts of wacky and very interesting opinions, many of which have forced me to think deeply about my beliefs, when talking with people in Beijing.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#369

Post by munificent »

nine_k wrote: post #206

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…

> 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.

"Religion" is a confusing, misleading term that has a lot of baggage that isn't helpful in discussions like this. Most religions also have supernatural beliefs and a literal definition of sacrilege such that certain things are bad in the eyes of God/the universe itself. Progressivism (whatever you mean by that) doesn't.

A better word for what you're describing is "culture". A culture is ready-made collection of best practices and anti-patterns for human behavior. You don't need a religion to have forbidden practices. A cultural more says "Don't do this." but doesn't follow that with "because God hates it as attested to in this book".

The benefit of culture is that it's efficient. You don't have to figure out every single action you perform from first principles. If the people who came before you did it, it becomes part of a culture and you do it too. That's why when you're hungry, you don't go out into the woods and start sampling plants one at a time to see which are edible. You pick one of the many known-good plants that you were brought up eating.

The risk is that, like all technology, it can become outdated when the constraints that led to it change. For example, many in the US have a cultural idea that pork should always be cooked well-done, even though it doesn't taste very good. That was a good rule back when trichinosis was common. Now that it isn't, that cultural norm is technical debt.

If that was a religious belief, it would be unchangeable. Pork would be cooked well done because Important Old Book says it must. That constraint never changes (unless you revise the text of the Old Book, which does happen), so the rule never changes.

In a culture, it can change. We both absorb and affect the culture we live in. That's why I think it's important to not call things like "progressivism" a "religion" even though it makes for a fun, provocative claim. It obscures the very different mechanisms around how those belief systems respond to change.

One of the fundamental beliefs of progressivism — the thing that gives it its name! — is that change is good.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#370

Post by [deleted] »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #256
olympus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway. NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's comp…

Well that, and he runs a company whose value proposition is very explicitly tied to SV being the best place to start a startup, so it would be kind of awkward if he moved.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN