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

201–210 of 266 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#201

Post by TeMPOraL »

rland wrote: post #44
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!

Statements like these are STEM vs. Non-STEM version of "why does Twitter need 4000 software engineers? I could make that in two weeks!" Didn't Paul Graham write an article about that?

Such statements aren't about "4000 software engineers" but "4000 employees", and the answer always is, "3960 of those are in administrative or sales and marketing roles".

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#202

Post by coldtea »

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…

And who judges what is intolerant, and should therefore be suppressed ("by force", none the less), over simply what those who yield the power don't like, or the ideological fashions of the "good people" of the times don't like?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#203

Post by TeMPOraL »

hinkley wrote: post #105
tempestn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're saying that more polymaths are likely to end up as physics professors than French professors, doesn't that actually support the point he's making?

Proving that it makes sense for anecdotes to exist doesn't suddenly turn them into data. Polymaths are physicists does not even mean that physicists are polymaths.

No, but "polymaths are smarter than non-polymaths" and "polymaths are much more likely to go into physics than French literature" combined essentially prove PG's point.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#204

Post by coldtea »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #188
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 it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. It's simpler to see if you apply the Paradox recursively. There's a reason for an exception to tolerance. It's made only in case of people who directly want to get rid of other members of society. Society needs to get rid of them first. But if, in your quest of chasing out the intolerant, you extend the meaning of intolerance to anything beyond immed…

>I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis.

So, Popper's idea is basically a way for a minority who "knows best" to impose their will by force upon the "intolerant" majority (which they term "masses" or "mobs").

In might prevent Nazi-style harm (where the masses were pro Hitler), but it's a recipe for USSR-style harm (where the party knew better and lorded over the masses, "for their good", and protesters were labelled "a mob")...

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#205

Post by psilocipher »

rmilejczz wrote: post #200
jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

Honest question, has anyone ever been fired, imprisoned, or killed for saying that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/teacher-fired-refusi...

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#206

Post by jonny383 »

rmilejczz wrote: post #200
jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

Honest question, has anyone ever been fired, imprisoned, or killed for saying that?

My brother in law was fired from a law firm for stating (at a casual drinks night) that he believed that, legally speaking, people should not be allowed to change their gender on their birth certificate.

He had worked there for six years as a para-legal, soon to be lawyer. I don't think his cause was helped that the director of said firm had a transgender sister (or brother). He was unaware of this.

EDIT: Typo.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#207

Post by luckylion »

johnr2 wrote: post #185
gruez wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. examples?

> examples? Person A is accused of criminal act X. Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." Person C: "X-apologist!"

Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though?

"She's a witch!"

"It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place."

"He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#208

Post by umvi »

gruez wrote: post #133
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.

> 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. examples?

"Jane got black out drunk around strangers and then she--"

"Wait before you say anything more, that seems like a poor choice, but go on"

"How dare you! Victim shaming is not ok!!"

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#209

Post by slfnflctd »

pointerpointer wrote: post #191
hmry wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are supposed to be readable still. If you can't then that's an accessibility issue, not censorship. Try turning up your screens contrast.

I don't have accessibility issues and I don't make this up. I've seen comments with a text color of #eee, I had to go into the inspector to make it readable.. Maybe that has been changed/fixed already which would make my entire comment pointless indeed. Personally I think grey out text should not exceed about #ccc.

I'm actually fine with HN's system because I think most of us know how to get at text which appears unreadable. But this seems like a very fair & reasonable suggestion.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#210

Post by TeMPOraL »

luckylion wrote: post #207
johnr2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> examples? Person A is accused of criminal act X. Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." Person C: "X-apologist!"

Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though? "She's a witch!" "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." "He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")

I don't know about others, but at least myself I felt there was a kind of "zeitgeist" of the 1990s/2000s-era Internet, that we're supposed to be above witch hunts and other similar stupidity. It feels as if new levels of idiocy were inserted into the Internet over the last decade.
Post reply on HN