E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#411

Post by dominotw » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #308

dominotw wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if am I reading this correctly. Previously you said "any self selected polling is meaningless" Now you are saying "Self selected polling is meaningful when people who didn't self select had the opportunity to do so" . Ok. So by that definition the poll I linked, everyone had the opportunity to participate in the debate, theoretically. What makes it meaningless ? PS: Fixing democracy ect is not interesting to me in…

Because I, for one, didn't know it was happening and therefore could not participate. My chance of having my opinion count was zero. So pretty much by definition the poll is not representative of the universe of people-who-include-me. And by induction of all the other people who had no chance to participate. If you want to know more, I recipient looking up the 1936 Literary Digest poll for US President, one of the mo…

its the same with US polls, everyone having an opportunity is merely theoretical. Lots of people are unable to votes for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps explain how you are defining * opportunity to participate* .

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#412

Post by slededit » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #387

slededit wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but this isn't about presenting an argument, the one example given in this blog post is about someone working towards a goal. If that goal is unethical and the person is working towards it we should be able to call them unethical. It's not about whether Hitler is saying medical care is good, it's about whether someone working to exterminate the Jews can be called unethical.

Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless.

Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person.

In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#413

Post by smacktoward » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #378

cortesoft wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's how they justify it, but empirically it doesn't seem to be the case. E.g. liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get. I think it's just based on how much of a threat a gro…

> liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get.

This is because American Muslims are nowhere near powerful enough to write their prejudices into law, whereas conservatives control all three branches of the Federal government and 31 state legislatures (see https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses).

You will always find that people consider your opinions worthy of much closer scrutiny when you reach a position from which you can impose them on everybody else.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#414

Post by btilly » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #340

btilly wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that "logical response" is that it is wrong. Here is a simple demonstration. Consider the conservative argument that when you raise the minimum wage, elementary economics of supply and demand results in fewer jobs for poor people. I guarantee you that if you present this argument to 10 liberal friends, more than half will have a strong emotional response against it. While responding, some are likely…

No, the 'logical response' isn't wrong, it just isn't followed by all self-proclaimed 'liberals'. Of course some liberals will have emotional reponses to something that is not actually an intolerant opinion, like your example. There is no admission requirements to be a 'liberal', so we can't deny entry to people who don't understand the difference between a moral question and an implementation question like minimum w…

In my experience, the "logical response" isn't an accurate description of most liberals. The original statement is.

The fact that a liberal thinks that "conservative" should be replaced with "intolerant" is a symptom of the problem that I describe.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#415

Post by simonbyrne » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

Of course he has to be careful what he says in the Bay Area: there he's a widely known and respected figure with a powerful public presence. Anyone, anywhere in such a position would be in the same boat.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#416

Post by Aaron1011 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

> I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home.

> Restricting speech leads to restricting ideas and therefore restricted innovation—the most successful societies have generally been the most open ones

There's quite a difference between 'I feel uncomfortable discussing topic X in location Y' and 'location Y is restricting speech'. The only concrete example in the article of the former is a 'toxic reaction' to work in 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension'.

What exactly does a 'toxic reaction' mean? Is there a meaningful distinction between it and 'strenuous debate about ideas'?

Based on the examples given, this article seems to hold 'mainstream' and 'heterodox' ideas to different standards. Criticism of mainstream ideas is (rightly) described as 'necessary to get the really good ideas', 'what drives the world forward', etc. Criticism of heterodox ideas, on the other hand, is a 'restriction of speech' and a 'toxic reaction'.

I wish that Altman had provided more a single example (the reaction to 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension') instead of vague references to 'controversial ideas', 'casting the people behind the ideas as heretics', and 'heresy.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#417

Post by cortesoft » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #361

cortesoft wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think everyone (including me) agrees that you shouldn't arrest or legally stop people from expressing their opinions, no matter how morally reprehensible those opinions are.

However, that isn't what the blog post is talking about. It is saying people SHOULD tolerate it personally, and we shouldn't call people 'heretics' for their ideas no matter what those ideas are.

I think it is ok for people to say "If you say gay people shouldn't get married, I am going to immediately respond that you are wrong and that it is immoral to hold that belief. If you say and hold that belief, I do not want to be friends with you and I don't want to support your business."

Boycotting people and businesses that hold views that go against your moral beliefs isn't wrong, and should not be condemned as blocking progress.

Now, I do think we all have the responsibility to make sure we limit the things that we respond to in this way. For example, we shouldn't have the 'shun the person' response if you disagree with what the tax rate should be, or if you think that raising the minimum wage will cause rampant inflation. Those aren't moral beliefs, they are implementation details.

Now, it would be different if your belief was "I don't want to raise the minimum wage because poor people don't deserve help", we might run into more issues. It becomes a bit tricky because a lot of horrible, immoral, views are hidden behind false justifications. Sometimes we make mistakes, and people with legitimate beliefs might be caught up in the crossfire, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasons into account when determining the response to an opinion.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#418

Post by amdavidson » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #254

amdavidson wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a person uses the words "What about" does not make their argument whataboutism. Their argument is 100% relevant to the sentiment that was expressed. If the stated benefit of excluding one group to allow for the free expression of the other is increased scientific discourse, how do we balance that against the loss of discourse from the excluded?

Sam is asking people to be more inclusive of different ideas, not excluding one group for the benefit of the other. I don't quite get how one jumps from 'we have to tolerate different ideas' to 'people will be excluded'. How does tolerating different ideas excludes people ?

It's trivially easy to imagine this from the opposite perspective.

Imagine you worked in a 90% gay office, and it was tolerated to disparage you and remark on the vile nature of your heterosexuality on a daily basis.

Only an exceptionally strong willed person would stay very long and it still probably would reduce their output of novel ideas.

The argument is not, and should never be, that we should fire people for their thoughts. If someone is strongly socially conservative, that's their right. But is is perfectly reasonable to require people to leave those conversations at home when they head into the office.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#419

Post by lr4444lr » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

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…

Except you're conflating a person thinks with what they do. It is still entirely possible for your hypothetical coworker to give a more honest evaluation of a female colleague's tech work than for one who was a women's rights firebrand and perhaps prone to overlook poor female performance because of his or her own biases. You are right to demand impartiality where judgment affects another person's equality. It's unfair however to assume without evidence that someone is incapable of impartiality because of what they think.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#420

Post by kazinator » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #417

kazinator wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think everyone (including me) agrees that you shouldn't arrest or legally stop people from expressing their opinions, no matter how morally reprehensible those opinions are. However, that isn't what the blog post is talking about. It is saying people SHOULD tolerate it personally, and we shouldn't call people 'heretics' for their ideas no matter what those ideas are. I think it is ok for people to say "If you say g…

> I think everyone (including me) agrees that you shouldn't arrest or legally stop people from expressing their opinions

That simply isn't the case; definitely not "everyone".

> and we shouldn't call people 'heretics' for their ideas no matter what those ideas are

Indeed, those people are wrong; if you want to publicly call someone a heretic, or whatever, (in a non-harassing way), that's just your freedom of expression. You don't have to like the fact that someone thinks controlling women's bodies is a good idea, and may call them a backwards idiot or whatever.

> Boycotting people and businesses that hold views that go against your moral beliefs isn't wrong, and should not be condemned as blocking progress.

Right as far as a personal boycott goes; but now suppose you don't want to let such a person into your restaurant, or give them a job in spite of qualifications.

Also note that if you belong to some religion A, then people from a certain other religion B almost by the respective definitions of A and B hold views that go against your moral beliefs.