Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 266 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#111

Post by spumoni »

ixtli wrote: post #89
egdod wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for proving the point. People of literally every race are allowed to be proud of being that race... except white.

I’m so sick of dealing with people who make this nonsense argument. You know damn well the cultural context the literal words you wrote carry. It’s incredibly (and intentionally!) disingenuous to say this is anything like someone saying “I’m proud to be of Spanish decent.” You know, come to think of it I’d be weirded out by anyone saying something equivalent, like being proud of being Asian instead of saying “I’m pro…

[flagged]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#112

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#113

Post by ggm »

golemotron wrote: post #110
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…

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is not falsifiable.

Are you saying only falsifiable things are tenable? Axioms (which it is not) are also unfalsifyable. If you change axioms you're in a different system.

Or if you don't like axioms, principles.

Paradoxes are by design, not falsifying?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#114

Post by incompatible »

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #101
Jarwain wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of…

Certain choices are made which aren't compatible with universal tolerance. E.g., the doctrine of private property, requires suppression of people who don't believe in it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#115

Post by [deleted] »

musicale wrote: post #79
undefined1 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul's response to this: "Actually, for illustrative purposes I did include a few things you can't say, but I stuck to domain-specific ones. Within university faculties, this is the great unmentionable. And look at how much trouble I got in for bringing it up. (So far no one from the US car industry has complained though, perhaps because I mentioned explicitly that a heresy was coming, instead of just inlining it.) T…

Thought experiments like this may reflect our own attitudes more than reality. Poor review practices in journals are not limited to the humanities and social sciences. For example, peer review in CS seems to be highly random, often biased (depending on reviewer and author rather than the paper) and only weakly correlated with quality and impact. Moreover, there seems to be a problem with reproducibility (as well as d…

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#116

Post by ixtli »

spumoni wrote: post #111
ixtli wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so sick of dealing with people who make this nonsense argument. You know damn well the cultural context the literal words you wrote carry. It’s incredibly (and intentionally!) disingenuous to say this is anything like someone saying “I’m proud to be of Spanish decent.” You know, come to think of it I’d be weirded out by anyone saying something equivalent, like being proud of being Asian instead of saying “I’m pro…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#117

Post by ixtli »

georgewsinger wrote: post #19

> For example, at the high water mark of political correctness in the early 1990s, Harvard distributed to its faculty and staff a brochure saying, among other things, that it was inappropriate to compliment a colleague or student's clothes. No more "nice shirt." I think this principle is rare among the world's cultures, past or present. There are probably more where it's considered especially polite to compliment som…

What is the IDW?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#118

Post by ixtli »

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.

This strikes me as wishful thinking possibly born of not having had enough conversations with concerted racists. The ones who are not afraid to tell you what they really believe will do so without the sort of equivocation you get from crypto-reactionaries who talk about "free speech" and "tolerance."

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#119

Post by tlb »

chess93 wrote: post #63

My belief is that people believe whatever they want to believe. If you are liberal it is because you want to be liberal. Alternatively you might just not want to be conservative. Same for the other direction. Naturally formed beliefs are just an afterthought. It goes without saying that this might not apply to everyone or to every belief. For the record, I recognize that perhaps I believe this belief strictly because…

How does that theory explain large scale social changes over time? Why do peoples attitudes change in sync?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#120

Post by tus88 »

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN