I can't get past the hubris of the title. Sam, you're not Galileo; nobody's putting you to death, just criticizing you. And whatever the unpopular "truth" you want to express is, if it's true (like "E Pur Si Muove") it should survive that criticism.
E Pur Si Muove
731–740 of 853 posts
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#732Shortly 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…
> I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives. That may be what you personally felt in this single personal anecdote, but it is not at all supported by the results for the bay area in the election[1]. There were an e…
OP is talking about the fact that people did not want to talk about their voting choice, for fear of criticism and being ostracized.
My mom - and almost all of her friends - are also in that group. What was so surprising about her group of friends was that NONE of them talked about who they were going to vote for, prior to the election - EVEN TO EACH OTHER. AFTER the election they were all shocked to find they all felt the same way and almost all had voted for Trump.
Their silence was directly a consequence of the doxx culture that would have meant their entire lives would be thrown into ruin for sharing their point of view.
Progressive culture in the US has become toxic. The sooner people realize this, the better.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#733Shortly 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…
> I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives. I'm not sure this observation has much value. Voting for a candidate that shares your values in a time when those values aren't popular is equivalent to doing so when th…
> The paradox of tolerance is very real.
True but we aren't talking about things at that extreme. We were talking about an unwillingness to talk about your policital candidate, for fear of how "liberals" would treat you.
That should be alot more worrying to people than I think it is.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are you saying this person voted for Trump to "own the libs"? No, that's not what I said nor is it what I implied. He voted for Trump because, among other reasons, he thought Mrs. Clinton was a terrible candidate and would make a terrible president, and he personally weighed that more heavily than what he knew of Trumps disadvantages. I don't agree with that assessment, but it is reasonable.
>I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives. I read that as "we wouldn't vote for Trump, but did anyways because of how progressives see us". Maybe I misread this.
> I read that as "we wouldn't vote for Trump, but did anyways because of how progressives see us". Maybe I misread this.
Yep. I know a great many people who voted for that reason. They felt marginalized, and their vote was the only way they could strike back - because talking could ruin their lives.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#735The 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…
I thought it was ironic that earlier today I read an article about China's (by way of private companies) "Social Ranking" score from Wired[1], part of it entails journalist Liu Hu being part of the "Supreme People's Court black list" and the fallout that it entailed. It's convenient to be a tourist sometimes. 1. https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/
Holy sh that is incredibly disturbing.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found that to be the case in Cuba. It actually felt more liberating than a typical American city, in that I could walk down the street alone drinking a beer at night in the middle of the city without fear. However, I also know that, like most totalitarian regimes, they'll allow a good bit of flex until they decide not to anymore, and then the crackdown is swift.
As a tourist that's how you felt, but did you speak to the people who live there? What you'll find is a people scared to criticize their dictatorship government, which is incredibly rich and lives a life of luxury whilst their citizens are very poor.
Yep, I did. In fact, our government-provided tour guide was pretty open about that. I'm sure he felt that he could be open with us because the government largely doesn't care that much about micromanaging the impressions tourists get. So monitoring what he tells us simply is not a high priority. They care about long-term domestic control.
My point was just that for any short amount of time in most totalitarian states, you're unlikely to encounter the arbitrary crackdowns that have a chilling effect on free expression for people who live their permanently.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#737Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't read it that way. I read it as: - Extending human lifespan harms the environment. - Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided) - Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong. This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.
No, the issue is not that extending human lifespans is ethically wrong (it may or may not be, but that's an opinion about research.) It's claiming that people working on such research are unethical people. A very basic part about good-faith discussions is to discuss the topic at hand and not the people having the discussion.
Huh, I don't see the difference really here. If extending human lifespans is wrong (I think you and I agree that's not the point we want to argue), then doesn't that mean working to extend human lifespans is ethically wrong?
I think the conclusion of your line of argument is that you can never say a particular person is unethical. I don't think I like that consequence - it absolves anyone of guilt for anything.
In an extreme case, how about this: "Stealing thing is wrong. Therefore, thieves are unethical people." Seems clearly reasonable to me.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#738n-gate.com is going to have a wonderful time with the comments here.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples. The article isn't that complicated. He meant to say exactly what he did say. Which makes sense, given the entire point of tolerating free speech is that people are free to say terrible things, not "moderately uncomfortable" things. Executive summary: (1) Open societies are more innovative. (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less toleran…
> (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less tolerant of divergent viewpoints. As measured by what? Are there people being jailed for expressing a divergent opinion, or being refused service in restaurants/hotels/shops/etc, or unable to find employment? For the latter point, employment, some people are likely to pick one of the few examples that routinely get reused in this discussion - such as Damore + Google, or Eich + Mo…
My main measure for that happened is that Sam Altman feels like that may be happening.
Appeal to authority, but I admit he's in a better place than I to see whether it is or isn't in funding circles.