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

791–800 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#791

Post by grandmczeb »

anonymoushn wrote: post #782
grandmczeb wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#792

Post by jumelles »

wrren wrote: post #320
saberience wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people have lost their livelihoods" Hmm, sounds intriguing. Do you have any sources for this or concrete examples which can be fact-checked?

Matt Taibbi's had a few good articles on this recently. Some excerpts: "Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other p…

Many people arguing against "cancel culture" like to say that it ruins people's lives when they're fired, and it's a statement that is inextricably rooted in privilege. Millions of people are fired or laid off every year - why should one only care when it's because someone said something and got cancelled?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#793

Post by sinker »

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #785
sinker wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).

I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like: * "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!) * "don't argue with racists" * "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth ha…

I've heard this sentiment expressed. The limits of rationality, reason, and scientific process is a whole topic worth exploring even if just for the philosophic value, but right now, discourse, within the framework of rationality and reason is the best tool society has to solve its problems. There's nothing else. Violence clearly isn't the tool. Nor is emotional reflex. Nor is anecdotal thinking. Nothing else scales and has the capability to tackle the sophistication of society-wide problems.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#794

Post by bendbro »

grandmczeb wrote: post #791
anonymoushn wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.

It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#795

Post by [deleted] »

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #785
sinker wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).

I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like: * "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!) * "don't argue with racists" * "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth ha…

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#796

Post by deanCommie »

frabbit wrote: post #316
tenuousemphasis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define what you mean by free speech? That speech alone should not be punished by the state? Or that speech should have no social consequences? Because to me "the liberal-Left exercising their intolerance" could also be viewed as exercising their freedom of association.

Punished by the state specifically. I don't see how you could enforce speech _not_ having social consequences, nor what the purpose of such speech would be if that were possible.

If that is the case, then free speech is not in danger. As you say, "the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance".

The liberal left is not in power in the government. So are they not just exercising their free speech?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#797

Post by jariel »

BurningFrog wrote: post #779
michaelmrose wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

It's not a linguistic question, it's a social question.

"Is a man who identifies as a woman, a woman, or a man?" - that's a pretty core question.

To be fair, it's pretty important to trans women that they identify and be referred to as 'women'. That's pretty core to the identity, so it's more than a word.

So, in that sense, I can understand how her arguments could be disconcerting to some.

But - when we talk about what is 'objectively a woman' or the policies we apply in sports, that kind of stuff, then it's an issue that transcends just self identification.

In terms of 'self identity' - well - 'who cares' really, I agree, but what about the legal requirement for others to use specific words, or sports, special facilities, access to gendered facilities and clubs etc. - then it becomes a real problem.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#798

Post by jariel »

michaelmrose wrote: post #771
jariel wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

Well you seem to be able to help me make my point better than I ever could by myself.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#799

Post by jariel »

grahamburger wrote: post #749
michaelmrose wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This tends to be my gut reaction too. Maybe because I live in a very conservative area and come from a very conservative background. In my filter bubble I consistently see people saying really horrible, legitimately and unapologetically racist and mysoginist things and not being called out or cancelled in any meaningful way but actually encouraged. That makes it hard to take complaints about cancel culture seriously.…

So a key understanding here is the difference between common crude rhetoric - and other dynamics.

Concern over 'cancel culture' has nothing to do with the right for people to be racist jerkoffs.

It mostly a concern over people not to be able to hold opinions, intellectuals not allowed to speak, for actors not to be 'shamed' because they played someone of a different ethnicity - i.e. a lot of things for which there are thresholds of sensitivity but otherwise, most people are not offended because actions are not objectively offensive.

This idea that 'cancel culture' is defending the KKK or people calling people the 'n-word' is the biggest straw-man of the era.

Nobody cares about Nazis or Harvey Weinstein. But Nick Cannon, Kevin Hart, Jordan Peterson, JK Rowling etc. - this is ridiculous.

I'll bet $100 that the public at large is 'correct' in most cases of 'cancel culture'.

Should 'Weinstein' be cancelled? Probably 99% agree. JK Rowling? Probably 1% agree. Kevin Hart? Probably 2% agree.

People are not hopped up on ridiculousness and have some sensibility - the fighting is mostly on twitter and in the news.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#800

Post by grandmczeb »

bendbro wrote: post #794
grandmczeb wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.

It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.

I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
Post reply on HN