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

671–680 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#671

Post by yters »

prepend wrote: post #612
ak_yo wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage you to think of this from the perspective of the person who's fearing for their life. It's rational to assume that the likelihood of someone potentially harming you is much higher if they're vocally expressing hatred about your identity.

It the fear is irrational, then it’s really not that wise to try to think from their persective. Since that irrationally might make someone flip. Like those people who self radicalize. Now, this is quite different if someone is expressing or advocating violence. But some old catholic lady being against gay marriage represents zero threat of violence. Especially if she isn’t vocally expressing the hatred at work, but…

Plus, saying "I believe it is wrong for people to do X" is not the same as saying "I hate people who do X". So a lot of the use of the word "hate" in this discussion is unjustified.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#672

Post by phantomathkg »

volgo wrote: post #613
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…

A lot of people think you have to watch what you say in China, and they almost always are people who have never been there. There are very specific political things you can't do, but otherwise literally not one gives a shit about you. You can say what you want, and unless you specifically go organize a large group of people and screaming in public something politically sensitive, no one cares. Ideally in a society we…

Care to clarify what do you mean by "Ideally in a society we don't want those people anyways."? Everything happens around you and me are politics. Do you really think a 1984-like PRC is best of the citizen there. I don't think so.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#673

Post by LoSboccacc »

yesenadam wrote: post #646
LoSboccacc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anymore and I'd also add "to the best of our armchair knowledge"

I thought yours a very interesting, worthwhile and thought-provoking comment. I'm puzzled why it's voted down. Maybe too succinct. 3^4 words good, 3^2 words baad?

it's because rule#324 subsection 20 of this site

"usa did nothing wrong"

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#674

Post by LoSboccacc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #666
LoSboccacc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anymore and I'd also add "to the best of our armchair knowledge"

And to yours, I'd add "for values of 'anymore' smaller than last 30 years", and kindly remind everyone that US military used to spray pathogens on its own, unsuspecting populace, in order to experimentally explore the areas of bioweapons defense and offense.

yeah honestly puzzled why that's so downed since there are still living person whom did that shit, it is not even one generation past and this place is like "we're the supreme moral force of the world! hurr durr"!

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#675

Post by echaozh »

johnny22 wrote: post #622
xster wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a sensible theme to explore but is this data or conjecture? I'd make a similarly anecdotal conjecture that you'd be met with rigorous debate but your social character standing won't be affected by bringing this topic up, nor would it be socially acceptable for your opponent to use ad hominem at any point. This is the theme the author is addressing.

but one can put you in jail and the other can't.

Saying Taiwan is another country won't put you in jail. Unless you're actually working towards this goal.

Saying hiring more male software engineers may not be that wrong, however, do put you out of your job.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#676

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

mephitix wrote: post #610
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 di…

> I've been to China and you can get thrown in jail for saying the type of things we say re. our political environment.

It's jail vs sacking; different aspects of the same reaction.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#677

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

Actually I'm surprised this article hasn't been flagged yet. Many of us feel the same, but it's unusual to discuss these things openly. Last time I saw the discussion was triggered by Google sacking Damore - and almost all discussions were flagged as soon as SF woke up.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#678

Post by beachy »

reitanqild wrote: post #670
beachy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know this is a joke and I also think American gun laws could need some adjustment. That said what I've always been told is to start with myself: maybe my "opponents" are dumb. That doesn't help anything but my ego. Instead I'd recommend looking into common ground or another way to present my arguments. I disagree deeply with a good number of you but still I think most of you don’t realize most of the time since I e…

Yeah, I probably phrased my post overly provocatively but I wasn't trying to be funny, just logical. And thank you for a reasoned and courteous response. My thoughts were:

1) Mass shootings are horrific, and it seems insane that anyone can own an assault rifle with such low barriers, but at the same time, death from gun violence is statistically low compared to, say, auto accidents. If being in favour of stricter gun regulation to save a few tens of thousand of lives (in a country of hundreds of millions) means alienating a huge percentage of the population, then why not let that one slide. Things will be no worse than they are now.

2) Many people (certainly me) would say that abortion is a woman's right but even if abortion is illegal, back street abortions will still take place. They may be in unsanitory and dangerous conditions, and some deaths will result. But again, statistically speaking, that will only impact a small percentage of the population.

3) Climate change however, seems like it presents an existential danger that could wipe us out as a species. Our growth driven economies seem unequipped to deal with this ultimate tragedy of the commons. Statistically, it will kill 100% of us, or severely degrade our grandchildren's lives, unless we somehow get our shit together on a global scale.

To use a crappy analogy, imagine we're all locked inside a giant container with limited air. There's a blocked air vent at the top, which we can only reach of we all stand on each other's shoulders - i.e. cooperate.

In such circumstances, why continue bickering over what music we should play while we wait for suffocation? Surely it would be better to listen to the other guys music, if it got him onside, and allowed us to move away from our tribal stances and work together on some action against the common threat.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#679

Post by ironjunkie »

andrenotgiant wrote: post #18
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.

> 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. Well said, so well said that I'd like to tweet it and share it, but I won't, because of the exact problem it describes.

yep. It is getting that bad. I would love to tweet this and debate this with people but I know that if I do so there is a high chance it might impact my career and my overall life here in the bay.

Sometimes I'm wondering how many people like me just pretend to blend in and go with the mainstream political correctness just because we don't have the guts//strength to fight this fight right now. My guess? a LOT from what I can see in my circle of friends over here.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#680

Post by alien_at_work »

cortesoft wrote: post #348
alien_at_work wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that what we're discussing is not objectively unethical. If we were discussing disecting live babies, then no one would disagree that anyone for that is unethical and even evil. But extending human life? We don't know exactly what would happen if we did that. Some people think it would be the end of the world, others (like me) think it would actually bring about positive change. Given that it's controver…

Doesn't it depend on how strongly your belief about the ethics are? We all place ethical considerations on a scale - murder is worse than littering. The exact placement of an action on the moral spectrum, however, is subjective (e.g. some people place eating animals very high on the spectrum as being very immoral). Everyone is going to have some threshold where they think 'an act that is this immoral means the person…

At the very least we need to consider the culture. In our culture there are things where we consider them unambigously immoral and anyone engaging in them or even defending them is as well. But we have other things that are at least controversial to most people (e.g. eating animals). In the latter case, I find it perfectly fine to argue against it, even passionately so. But it's absolutely not ok to demonize or ostracise people for it. I feel like, as a society, we knew this until recently. At least most of us did.
Post reply on HN