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

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#771

Post by michaelmrose »

jariel wrote: post #765
michaelmrose wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

" she doesn't regard trans women as actual women" I don't view trans women as 'the same as female women' either, to me, they are very objectively 'something else', 'not exactly like women', but I also have zero problems with them 'being women for the most part' and identifying as such if they want. In my view, denying the glaringly obvious difference between 'trans women' and 'female women' is to deny reality, in the…

People are allowed to think you are a bigot and say so. You are allowed to deride them while you roll in your scrooge mdduckian pile o money.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#772

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #763
michaelmrose wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Someone from an ex soviet state isn't better positioned to understand our current crisis... You'd think someone who is against fascism would be interested to hear from someone who actually lived in a oppressive, authoritarian state, whether it be communist or fascist (since they use the same methods).

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#773

Post by michaelmrose »

refurb wrote: post #763
michaelmrose wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Someone from an ex soviet state isn't better positioned to understand our current crisis... You'd think someone who is against fascism would be interested to hear from someone who actually lived in a oppressive, authoritarian state, whether it be communist or fascist (since they use the same methods).

I am interested in relevant perspective. I'm disinterested in listening wherein people disguise their lack of insight with the prop of their background and nationality.

Some people use their insight, intelligence, and education to dress up their ignorance in better clothes.

I'm also wondering why someone Who grew up in Russia and moved to Australia would have a deeper insight into the the country I've lived in all my life.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#774

Post by bendbro »

grandmczeb wrote: post #768
bendbro wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due t…

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition":

1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it.

2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to.

[1] Biden plan citing HOME act: https://joebiden.com/housing/

[2] The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning" https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#775

Post by yesenadam »

kaymanb wrote: post #279
ghiculescu wrote: post #168

When I read this part I thought it really resonated: > In adulthood we can recognize the four types by their distinctive calls, much as you could recognize four species of birds. The call of the aggressively conventional-minded is "Crush this essay!" He chose such a prescient example.

I can't put my finger on it, but there must be a name for this kind of logic. I think pgs arguments have more sustenance than just this, but it still rubs me the wrong way. I'll give an (extreme) example below. 1. Make a statement, calling out some part of the population as "inferior". 2. Note that a trait of belonging to the inferior class would be to disagree with the above statement. 3. Dismiss any criticism of th…

Gee, my sibling comment here was flagged, I don't know why, except maybe people saw "fascists/Nazis" and flagged it without reading it and/or the parent. Would the person/people flagging it care to explain why? Or do they have another better description for the style of reasoning in the parent's extreme example? Who have you seen talking/writing in precisely that way, besides fascists/Nazis? I thought my comment would be totally uncontroversial, both what it said and how I said it.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#776

Post by sinker »

oramit wrote: post #476
__alexs wrote: post #317

I honestly don't understand this perspective which seems central to a lot of pgs writing lately: "the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened" Can anyone explain it? We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of…

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?

I'll give it a try. At your company's next diversity seminar, why not suggest merit should be prioritized over diversity? Or that affirmative action is regressive in its effects, or that the talk of reparations is so silly as to be dismissed, or that women's unequal pay is due to factors unrelated to sexism, or that Asians are unfairly penalized in universities and the workplace, or that biological sex exists, or that trans women are not real women, or that trans women should not share a bathroom with biological women, or that white men are not oppressors, or that you don't support BLM. Whether or not these ideas are right, you clearly cannot express them. Not in the workplace and if you live in a large city, not to strangers, and sometimes not even to your friends. There's an implicit belief that if you deviate from some of these positions you must be a racist, misogynist, transphobic, alt-right, or a radical.

There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#777

Post by geodel »

sinker wrote: post #694

There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as havin…

> That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.

I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded.

Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#778

Post by int_19h »

I'm on the left myself - far enough that most people I consider like-minded would scoff at being called "liberal".

And I think that, while our broad cause is both rational and just, there are way too many people who believe that it can justify things that are unjustifiable; and who are, in effect, willing to replace their morality with "revolutionary necessity".

On the subject of conformance, freedom of speech, and censorship, in particular, this essay by Orwell is getting more relevant day by day:

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

This troubles me a lot, especially as I don't see alternatives here and now - large-scale, systemic changes are desperately needed, but that requires a mass movement; and while it's possible to have a mass movement that is not authoritarian, the one that we do have seems to be infested by authoritarian thinking to a significant degree.

True, it's fighting against authoritarianism that is even broader in scope - and worse yet, operating from a veneer of legitimacy, and with resources of state oppression at its disposal. But if "my" side wins, it'll get that same veneer - and with the attitudes that I'm observing, I find it hard to believe that the majority will be willing to discard those powerful tools as a matter of principle, or even believe that they're truly capable of misusing them.

I don't really have good answers. Insofar as decisions have to be made today, I try to go with what I see as "less wrong" - but that still leaves a lot to be desired from an ethical perspective. And yet staying out of the fight is also an unsatisfactory cop-out; for which I could, perhaps, find convincing enough excuses for people whose judgment matters to me, but never to my own conscience.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#779

Post by BurningFrog »

michaelmrose wrote: post #754
jariel wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans…

[flagged]

> A reasonable reading of her statement is that she doesn't regard trans women as actual women

Do people realize that this is just a linguistic question?

It's an argument about what the word "women" means or should mean. Not about any substantial real world issue.

To me, arguing about the meaning of words is one of the lowest forms of discourse.

Post reply on HN