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

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#241

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #198

bsanr2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bad analogy, though. In one case, you have a group who has to examine, and a group that has to discover. They both employ high-level critical-thinking and creative-thinking skills, but their output of novel work under even normal circumstances differs due to the nature of their work.

It's good analogy and it's really much simpler. Physics is grounded in reality. Literary criticism isn't. This is because most of the former is experimentally verifiable, or follows from experimentally verifiable results via a chain of rigorous formal reasoning[0]. In other words: you can't bullshit others as much in physics as you can in literature, and more importantly for being smart, you can't bullshit yourself.…

Okay, but there are two responses inline with mine that show physics literature as easily bullshit-able.

Also, no, it's a really bad analogy, for the reasons stated.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#242

Post by pgcj_poster » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #232

cc81 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you view intersex people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Exceptions do not invalidate categories. We do not say that humans have between 0 and 2 hands because some humans are born missing one or both of their hands. Such people are exceptions.

The statement "there are two genders" is only controversial because it is said in order to suggest that trans people are invalid or not real. If you accept that there can be exceptions, like intersex and trans people, then no one would disagree.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#243

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #96

bsanr2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm aware. I don't intend to engage with this sort of rhetoric so much as provide an example of how easy it is to defeat.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#244

Post by abvdasker » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

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.

Every time someone posts this article on HN -- it gets posted a couple times a year -- I have to roll my eyes. For me it's hard not to read this entire essay as a pseudointellectual dog whistle. Maybe criticism of P.G. on Hacker News is one of the Things You Can't Say. Whatever. Bring on the downvotes.

P.G. comes across as either incredibly naive or deeply cynical. His writing is frustratingly coy -- he should just say that he's talking about political correctness but doesn't. There's a kind of cowardice in maintaining this sort of plausible deniability. He hides behind the "first rule of Fight Club" and won't reveal whatever conclusions he's reached through this process of considering taboos, which is concerning because it signals he is scared of the consequences of revealing his opinions. One then wonders, what is it that P.G. believes that he's too afraid to even say?

It's also concerning that he doesn't seriously consider the relationship between ideas and power. Here are some things that he maybe should have thought about before writing this blog post:

1) What groups of people would the idea benefit? What groups would it harm?

2) Is the taboo idea similar to ideas held by a historically powerful group about a historically powerless group?

2) In considering whether a taboo idea might be true, do you, the thinker, have self-interest in it being true or not true?

3) Most importantly, if you're thinking in isolation about taboo ideas and adhere to PGs advice to never, ever talk about them, isn't it possible to arrive at wildly incorrect conclusions without outside input? Talking through ideas with others is what makes it possible to spot errors in reasoning. What better way to ensure your ideas remain unfalsifiable than to avoid talking to other people? Isn't this the very opposite of good science?

P.G. is a pretty good venture capitalist and that's about it. If you're looking for intelligent cultural commentary or philosophy look elsewhere.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#245

Post by pgcj_poster » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

psilocipher wrote: post #205

rmilejczz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

This is not an example of someone being fired for saying or believing that there are two genders. This was someone deliberately misgendering and ungendering a trans boy (not non-binary) in class after having been ordered to stop.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#246

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

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!"

That's an unintentional effect of the fact that prosecutors only tend to charge people they believe are likely to have committed a crime. Therefore, merely charging someone is to some extent prejudicial. That's partly why burden of proof standards exist. To reassure someone of the efficacy of due process after a charge has been leveled is tantamount to announcing your personal view of guilt, given the nature of the system. It's like looking at a football game between evenly-matched Teams A and B (52-7, 4th quarter, 5 minutes left) and stating that the rules allow for Team B to come back. Well, yes, but my friend would be forgiven for expressing discontent at your implicit assertion that the refereeing has been fair that game.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#247

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

pgcj_poster wrote: post #242

toasterlovin wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exceptions do not invalidate categories. We do not say that humans have between 0 and 2 hands because some humans are born missing one or both of their hands. Such people are exceptions.

The statement "there are two genders" is only controversial because it is said in order to suggest that trans people are invalid or not real. If you accept that there can be exceptions, like intersex and trans people, then no one would disagree.

FWIW, that trans people want to transition seems to support the stance that there are only two genders, since they are seeking to switch genders, rather than exist at some intermediary point. So stating that there are only two genders does not seem, to me at least, to be a statement which invalidates the existence of trans people.

I could be mistaken in my understanding, though. It’s hard to keep up with the latest developments in the gender identity space.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#248

Post by im3w1l » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:37 AM UTC

rjblackman wrote: post #95

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…

> Who is going to define that line? It will be defined through rational argument.

While one would hope that, all evidence points to the line being decided by those who control or can put pressure on The Platforms.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#249

Post by 333c » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:50 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #247

pgcj_poster wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement "there are two genders" is only controversial because it is said in order to suggest that trans people are invalid or not real. If you accept that there can be exceptions, like intersex and trans people, then no one would disagree.

FWIW, that trans people want to transition seems to support the stance that there are only two genders, since they are seeking to switch genders, rather than exist at some intermediary point. So stating that there are only two genders does not seem, to me at least, to be a statement which invalidates the existence of trans people. I could be mistaken in my understanding, though. It’s hard to keep up with the latest d…

Some trans people (so-called "binary" trans people) do indeed transition to being male or being female. Other trans people present their gender as neither female nor male but somewhere in the middle, and they are called non-binary. So both types of trans people do exist.

The "there are only two genders" people, in my view, are trying to invalidate all trans people because the statement is usually accompanied by, "and they're determined by your chromosomes." Even without that second part (which is a rare case in my estimation), the statement attempts to erase non-binary trans people, which other (binary) trans people do not agree with.

For someone who doesn't know much about gender identity, you are hitting on a relevant and interesting issue for trans people: the slightly conflicting desires of binary and non-binary trans people. A binary trans person will often want to embrace the stereotypes and norms of their gender as a tool to help them be seen as the gender that they identify with. This means, for women, wearing things like makeup and dresses, and for men, growing a beard and dressing in more masculine ways. However, non-binary trans people are in a sense defying and blending gender norms to reinforce that gender is a spectrum, not a binary. While both groups of trans people generally have similar views on gender (I think nearly all would say that there are more than two genders), in their personal lives they tend to skew in two different directions.

This is also relevant when it comes to gender pronouns. Non-binary trans people often advocate for everyone to share preferred gender pronouns rather than assuming, while some binary trans people would prefer to have their pronouns assumed, so long as the assumption is correct, because such an assumption validates their gender identity. There was a recent controversy where Natalie Wynn (aka ContraPoints), a binary trans woman, expressed her preference for gender pronouns to be assumed while acknowledging and supporting non-binary trans people's desire for no assumptions, and she was widely criticized (wrongly, in my view) for this.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#250

Post by liara_k » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #135

liara_k wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm guessing it's the shift for advocating for equality to advocating for diversity. eg. Harvard admissions where Asians and Whites have a handicap in an effort to increase diversity.

Diversity e.g., in higher education admissions isn't just about what's fair for the students, it's also about what's best for the university and the students.

Universities are naturally xenophillic--both in their desire to understand more about the world and in their desire to influence it. Exploration and openness to new experiences and ideas are also important intellectual values important to develop in students. All of these are enhanced with a diverse student body.

As a more concrete example... $IVY_LEAGUE doesn't gain that much by having its average standard test score go from the 99th to the 99.5th percentile. From the university's perspective, it gains more by admitting students who spread the influence of the university's ideas, enrich and enlarge context in classroom discussions, etc...