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

601–610 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#601

Post by AlexandrB »

sheepmullet wrote: post #599
methodover wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these people saying SF is less tolerant than the Deep South are almost certainly not gay. I came out in college in a big city in TX and it was fucking brutal. Someone who thinks SF is intolerant has no fucking clue what real intolerance looks like.

Or perhaps they have had different experiences from you?

Intolerance based on thoughts you have a choice to verbalize is markedly different than intolerance based on physical/physiological attributes you can't control. Someone having a bad experience because they expressed an unpopular opinion in SF seems bad if you've never been the target of disdain for just existing.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#602

Post by sbierwagen »

AlexandrB wrote: post #455
Animats wrote: post #409

Things you can't say in San Francisco: - Gays are about 3% of the US population. Higher in a few big cities, lower in rural areas. Transgenders, maybe 0.4%. - About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have legitimate complaints. - Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US white IQ: 100. Average US black IQ: 85. - "Medical marijuana" is a joke.

> - Gays are about 3% of the US population. Higher in a few big cities, lower in rural areas. Transgenders, maybe 0.4%. I don't get it. Assuming this demographic fact is correct, what's your point? That they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as the other 96.6%? > - About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have legitimate complaints. About 63 million Americans voted for Trump. This is not ha…

>About 63 million Americans voted for Trump. This is not half the US population. Whether half the US population supports Trump or not is pure speculation.

135.4 million people voted in the presidential election, 46% of them for Trump.

135.4 million isn't everyone in the US, but discussing if children should be allowed to vote is an entirely different argument.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#603

Post by sheepmullet »

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…

> As someone who grew up in India

> I find Bay Area by far to be the most open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived

SF is all about identity politics. Your race, gender, and sexual orientation matters more than your opinions and actions.

As a minority you are allowed to have opinions and beliefs that would get a conservative straight white man fired and shunned.

I really enjoy pretending to be gay when I go to bars in SF. You get a +10 to tolerance of your ideas.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#604

Post by kelukelugames »

kansface wrote: post #374
kelukelugames wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm okay with comedians writing bad jokes or telling them during open mic. Our society is somewhat tolerant of that. Al Franken did get elected after his rape joke was published. Though in hindsight that is an awful example. But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed. So I think Sam lacks empathy. Try this thought exercise. Replace the word "gay" in…

| So I think Sam lacks empathy... But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed. Sam is both gay and jewish... | Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person? I don't think "white people are evil" is a controversial statement is SF.

Harvey Weinstein is Jewish. Kevin Spacey is gay. Being X doesn't mean you automatically have empathy for Y. Or even X.

As for the second part, valley employees have gotten in trouble for criticizing "white". Wasn't there an outrage over Github?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#605

Post by sheepmullet »

AlexandrB wrote: post #601
sheepmullet wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps they have had different experiences from you?

Intolerance based on thoughts you have a choice to verbalize is markedly different than intolerance based on physical/physiological attributes you can't control. Someone having a bad experience because they expressed an unpopular opinion in SF seems bad if you've never been the target of disdain for just existing.

Why are they markedly different?

Ive found it's much easier to shrug off discrimination based on my skin color than it is to shrug off discrimination based on my core beliefs.

I'd love to see some research on this - do people who can be discriminated against based upon sexual orientation (which can be hidden) have it a lot easier than people who can be discriminated against based on skin color (which they obviously can't hide)?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#606

Post by Alex3917 »

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…

> The irony is, of course, is that "progressivism" often writes "reason" or "science" on its banners.

Progressivism is about infrastructure and government transparency. It has nothing to do with identity politics or other leftist issues.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#607

Post by ironjunkie »

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…

As an outsider to American politics. This is 100% my vision also.

I know a lot of people that have moderate views that are simply shut down by liberals. As a response, they hide and vote for Trump.

I see it as their way to elect someone that is not afraid to go against the accepted view of the elites and therefore going against all that political correctness nonsense.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#608

Post by na85 »

mkagenius wrote: post #23
ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

> We need to accept that some of these ideas are inherently dangerous. We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.

Certain religions have effectively stopped science at the local/regional scale.

Religion is the anathema to science.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#609

Post by prepend »

perl4ever wrote: post #569
prepend wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people? Would you also be scared of working with men because they typically commit homicides more than women? I think being afraid of your life simply because someone is a bigot who hasn’t exhibited any violent behavior is on you, not the bigot. A small number of bigots are violent and dangerous, that doesn’t mea…

A bigot, by what I think is a reasonable definition, is someone whose prejudices are resistant to contrary evidence. If someone is irrational in that way, then it is rational for me not to trust them, especially if their prejudices concern me directly. The fact that everyone, including me, has their own prejudices is not germane. If someone is angry about something all the time that really (from my POV) shouldn't con…

That’s an interesting perspective. Do you feel the same about other groups than bigots? What about people with mental illness? Would you not want to work with a schizophrenic in case they forget to take their meds?

Do you think religious people are irrational? Are you one those people who freak out when a Muslim steps onto the subway? It seems like your line of reasoning would mean you don’t want any Muslims working at your company. That’s pretty messed up.

Comically, thinking that bigots or Muslims might go postal at some point is highly irrational. It’s like worrying about meteor strikes. So since you’re irrational, you might snap. Therefore people with your mindset should avoid working with you?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#610

Post by mephitix »

Buldak wrote: post #514

The author says that it's safer to discuss "controversial" ideas in Beijing than America, but I wonder if that's partly because the ideas in question aren't actually controversial in Beijing. Presumably the ideas the author has in mind are those that might be interpreted to impugn certain disadvantaged groups. But if I found it more easy to say "gay people are degenerates" in Beijing, I don't think I would take that…

Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples.

Saying it's easier to talk about things in China vs US. I've been to China and you can get thrown in jail for saying the type of things we say re. our political environment. My friends there have to speak in whispers in public while people in SF have no problem raging about our politicians.

And saying we should "allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics". At its least a really poor choice of words there. The choice of words makes it sound like it's okay to stand aside while they spout bigotry. Perhaps he meant it's okay to say it, but we should argue against it - but unfortunately for him that point was not made because the intention of the article was to support free speech. Bad example.

Post reply on HN