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

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#121

Post by hydrox24 »

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.

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an investigation of moral axioms, or principles. It is not Science.

So it's okay that it can't be falsified.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#122

Post by toasterlovin »

Jarwain wrote: post #94
lone_haxx0r wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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

Interestingly, if you merely outlaw the use of violence, then you have already countered such an ideology. And, thus, there is no need to concern oneself with the beliefs of any ideology.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#123

Post by liara_k »

dextralt wrote: post #49
rocqua wrote: post #10

What is scary about this approach is that it tends to favor conservatism. Any change achieved politically can easily be dismissed as a moral fashion (immigrant's rights, racial equality being ideal, same-sex marriage, women's rights). This is much more of an issue when you use the methods outlined to argue against an idea. If instead you use these methods internally, this is less of an issue.

in case you haven't noticed, progressives have long since moved on from the idea of "equality" of races and sexes.

According to whom? The propagandists of their political adversaries, I'd wager.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#124

Post by knzhou »

ixtli wrote: post #118
knzhou wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I promise I've met worse racists than you have, and if you ask why they believe what they do, they talk in terms of self-defence. That they were minding their own business until group X took their jobs or killed their kin or stole their culture or broke their laws or left them destitute or insulted their people or took over their government. There is always a self-defence reason, and even more inconveniently, the ones with good memories can always cite lots of examples (which is inevitable, because it's a big world, so you can find genuine examples of anything).

Would they use the words "free speech" and "tolerance"? Probably not. But "standing up for yourself after being attacked unprovoked" and "justifiable intolerance of intolerance" are the same argument, with only superficially different wrapping.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#125

Post by toasterlovin »

jonahrd wrote: post #5

> It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Well having taken a lesson from the article, I think he's purely mistaken with this point. (As well as divisive, insensitive, etc..) Quite the hubris to make that assumption!

It appears that nobody in this thread has gone and tried to find it, but I believe there is research showing that hard scientists do actually tend to have very strong verbal skills in addition to their strong quantitative skills, whereas non-quantitative academics tend be strong only with verbal stuff.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#126

Post by taylormckay »

ixtli wrote: post #117
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?

From Wikipedia:

The intellectual dark web (IDW) is a neologism coined by American mathematician Eric Weinstein, and popularized in a 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss. The term refers to a group of public personalities who oppose what they see as the dominance of progressive identity politics and political correctness in the media and academia.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#127

Post by [deleted] »

jf- wrote: post #32
jonahrd wrote: post #5

> It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Well having taken a lesson from the article, I think he's purely mistaken with this point. (As well as divisive, insensitive, etc..) Quite the hubris to make that assumption!

We can pretend to be outraged by it but he’s very likely right. We’ve arrived at a point where it’s unacceptable to say that people have different levels of ability or that some professions require more than others. (And this comment didn’t go straight to the bottom this time, that’s a nice change.)

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#128

Post by evrydayhustling »

I'd like to think that, like opening paragraph brings up, this piece is an old snapshot that brings some embarrassment today. At the time it was posted I would have been excited about it. 15 years later, indulgently and exhaustively defining the well worn subject of heresy feels pretty dull.

Like most celebrations of heresy, this skips the fact that orthodoxy has its own value: coordination. Parents teach their kids to avoid bad words so that they can coordinate with others. This is not a bad thing.

A better thing still is for kids to understand that words aren't inherently bad but that being conscious of how others feel about them is good. The impactful heretics do the hard work of helping the orthodox world adapt to what they have discovered.

And meanwhile, the vast majority of heresies are authentically wrong. Celebrating being heretical for its own sake, rather than a combination of truth seeking and empathy, had enabled all manner of jerks and frauds over the years. Tech culture needs a more nuanced view of this topic.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#129

Post by toasterlovin »

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…

FWIW, I think that a huge amount of political alignment in the U.S. derives from aesthetic sensibilities.

The thing last year where Trump ordered McDonald's for the college football team that was visiting him because the White House cook staff was not working due to the government shutdown is basically the perfect example of this. The left though it was the most gauche, trashy thing that ever happened, as in, "I can't believe someone would server toxic trash food to a guest in their own home." And right wing people mostly though it was totally normal, as in, "Of course you would order McDonald's if something came up and you couldn't serve a home cooked meal to a guest."

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#130

Post by ixtli »

taylormckay wrote: post #126
ixtli wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the IDW?

From Wikipedia: The intellectual dark web (IDW) is a neologism coined by American mathematician Eric Weinstein, and popularized in a 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss. The term refers to a group of public personalities who oppose what they see as the dominance of progressive identity politics and political correctness in the media and academia.

Thank you. Strange that that article doesn’t at all mention Mencius Moldbug even though that’s clearly where this all inherits from.
Post reply on HN