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

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#141

Post by rjblackman » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #132

rjblackman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>the decision will be made through rational argument and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?

then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#142

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:13 AM UTC

tus88 wrote: post #120

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]

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#143

Post by tshaddox » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:17 AM UTC

> Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

> If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think what you're told.

I’ve never quite understood this argument, because it seems to imply that people’s beliefs are or should be a random, unpredictable process, and that any regularity in the data should be treated with apprehension. But if beliefs are not in fact random, but can be guided by some common forces, then it wouldn’t be strange to expect people’s beliefs to in some cases largely converge. Should I “stop and think about” the fact that I oppose murder, even though my parents and all my friends and even most of my “enemies” hold that same belief?” Of course not.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#144

Post by neonate » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

spumoni wrote: post #67

topmonk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

African Americans consist of only 13% of the population yet commit over half of the crimes. Asians and Whites score much higher on IQ tests than African Americans and Latinos. Women have innately different interests than men.

Researchers are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans a vast majority of the time.

So?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#145

Post by anatoly » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:22 AM UTC

undefined1 wrote: post #40

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!

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair happened in 2002, before Paul's article in 2004.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#146

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:23 AM UTC

ecuzzillo wrote: post #46

Uehreka wrote: post #30

Having seen many articles on this topic show up on HN, and this one in particular recur like a comet every year, I’d like to note a trend I feel like I see in the HN comments every time. First I see a highly upvoted top-level comment talking about how tragic it is that thoughtcrime is such a capital offense these days, and lamenting that surely the HN thought police will be coming for their head, but they still feel…

PG moved to England, afaik.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#147

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:32 AM UTC

rjblackman wrote: post #100

eebynight wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I get frustrated at this line of reasoning; how long do you have to debate it? If the person you are debating keeps bringing up illogical arguments, or says non-sequiturs, or keeps making the same arguments over and over, do you have to keep arguing or 'your position is forfeit'?

Do you have to debate EVERYONE who disagrees with you? Do you have to have the exact same argument with different people, because the second person didn't hear your argument with the first?

I have a friend who trolls me by taking advantage of my need to be rational. He will argue with me, but continue to make more and more non-sensical arguments as we go along. By the end, he will say something like "hah! So you admit hamsters are nocturnal, therefore the sun can't rise in the east!"

At that point I realize he has just been trying to get me angry with irrational argument, so I know I just have to stop arguing.

Just because I refuse to debate him doesn't mean I give up my ability to have a position.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#148

Post by dextralt » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:38 AM UTC

liara_k wrote: post #123

dextralt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to the fact that discriminatory hiring and college admission practices are deemed perfectly acceptable. You want some sources on that?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#149

Post by Mathnerd314 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #131

toasterlovin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Only the use of violence isn't enough; you have to ban the incitement to violence. Authoritarian causes never lacked martyrs.

It depends on how good the enforcement is. If orbital space lasers were set up to incinerate anyone committing an act of violence within a few seconds, it's hard to see how incitement to violence would work. Comparable examples might be getting blocked for posting too fast and triggering the automated spam filter, or trying to harass someone by mailing them $100 bills.

At the moment police response time is still 15 minutes though, and inadequate for large crowds, so there is some room for incitement.

The bigger problem though is just having laws and having enforcement of those laws; there is too much room for corruption, abuse, etc.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#150

Post by Sniffnoy » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:48 AM UTC

mikelyons wrote: post #6

kristianc wrote: post #4

The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in. But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.

Selfishness is devilry, and devils make Truth out as falsehood and spin falsehood as true.

This isn't a matter of selfishness, but groupishness.