What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#91

Post by voidhorse » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:40 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #83

voidhorse wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your differentiation between "intelligence" and "other skills" partially refutes Paul's point in the article. If we were to take your definition, Paul's saying that physicists, because they're better at ratiocination should be good enough at french literature to get a PHD, but based on your claim french literature involves a host of abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence (not strict ratiocination or prob…

> Claims like Paul's are just the intellectual equivalent of chest puffing. Don't get roped into the stupidity. This kind of attitude causes divisions and turns you into a prideful douche. It's indicative most of all that the author takes an extreme pride in whatever he takes to be his "intellect." Goliaths' waiting for their Davids. Do you not see yourself in this paragraph? Anyway, I’m sure French literature is a n…

To some extent, yes. My delivery has certainly been agressive and douchy--but all I'm advocating for is a broader acceptance of the value of other's intellectual pursuits--are the pursuits of physicists extremely impressive? Undoubtedly so. Does that mean we have to initiate a dick measuring contest about the respective intelligence of the members of different academic fields? No. It's totally useless! At least in my view.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#92

Post by yourbandsucks » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

spumoni wrote: post #86

yourbandsucks wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all how he described it in his Scott alexander-length blog post on the matter.

Why don't we pull up a direct quote, then? > At this point this stops being my story. A group of pro-CW-thread mods led by ZorbaTHut, cjet79, and baj2235 set up r/TheMotte, a new subreddit for continuing the Culture War Thread tradition. After a week, the top post already has 4,243 comments, so it looks like the move went pretty well. Despite fears – which I partly shared – that the transition would not be good for t…

Sorry, I thought you were implying something nasty.

I like TheMotte, although there's a few opinions I see that make my blood boil.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#93

Post by knzhou » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#94

Post by Jarwain » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:44 AM UTC

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #71

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the…

I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote

> they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means.

That in and of itself is a belief, but it is a belief that can be discussed through rational argument, and only calls upon violence when all else fails.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#95

Post by rjblackman » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #71

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the…

> Who is going to define that line?

It will be defined through rational argument.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#96

Post by ixtli » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

bsanr2 wrote: post #81

spumoni wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it gets even worse. You can't just not talk about being white. You can't talk about preserving a future for white children.

That seems to be more a case of the topic being a foregone conclusion to the point of triteness than anything else, considering that the only instance in which a future for white children isn't preserved is one in which everyone else is also screwed. In fact, the wealth of white parents is such that they could preserve the future for black children and have more than enough left over for their own. I wonder how much…

Just to be clear the comment you’re replying to is an intentional invocation of the so-called “14 words” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#97

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #93

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#98

Post by inimino » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

voidhorse wrote: post #74

inimino wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the vast majority of people that are good at rigorous studies and “hard” sciences are actually people who don’t question accepted beliefs—they use an entire framework of reasoning without ever questioning it on a day to day basis. This is of course true. But if you think this is an any way unique to the hard sciences, I have some humanities departments full of people I'd love to introduce you to.

Fair point. I wholeheartedly agree. The issue is, it is not the humanities profs, in this case, or at this time, that are claiming intellectual superiority. (funnily enough, it's not even a physicist that's claiming the intellectual superiority for physicists, but rather a venture capitalist computer scientist--this should be nice flag as to the dubiousness of the claim).

One of the very awkward things about things you can't say is they often come in opposite pairs.

So for example, you can't say that physicists are on the whole clearly working with more intellectual horsepower than literature majors. You also can't say that STEM folks tend to be some of the most blindly religious (though not about "religion") and closed-minded folks in the academy, with some of the most strongly held unexamined beliefs at the core of their epistemology and personal identity. Despite being unsayable, both these things are true.

Skepticism, self-awareness and self-doubt, leading to contemplation, thoughtful uncertainty, wisdom or enlightenment... it may be just as possible to find all these things through pure mathematics or physics as through comparative religion, literature, or philosophy, but it surely isn't as common. Regardless, wherever you look, they will be rare.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#99

Post by yzh » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:51 AM UTC

sterileopinions wrote: post #50

What about the things you can't say on HN

Just look at all the comments that got turned to grey. I bet there are patterns, and if looked over a long period of time, would seem like fashions too.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#100

Post by rjblackman » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:52 AM UTC

eebynight wrote: post #73

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

Every time this topic comes up someone posts this Popper argument. The problem, in my opinion, with this argument is that it is spoken from a position of moral superiority. When deciding whether to surpress an idea by force, who is making that decision? Why is that person or group correct about the matter? My major issue is that the people using this argument are usually so adamant about an idea they can’t see any fl…

the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).