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

Heresy

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#71

Post by ByteJockey »

bryant wrote: post #5

It seems like Paul is confusing intolerance of intolerance with heresy in this essay. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Expression of just about anything is met with fairly minimal consequence at least in much of the US, but nonetheless, there's a difference between not accepting something versus being intolerant of it. E.g not accepting [way of living] in one's own daily life v. not…

I think you're the one who is confused here. The paradox of tolerance was not conceived to describe people who merely hold opinions.

To quote Popper (this is also quoted in the wiki link you posted):

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Which is fair. If someone is going to respond to you by beating and shooting you, you shouldn't have to tolerate them. The justification for the intolerance of the intolerant is that the intolerant use violence to get their way.

But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics.

Re: Heresy

#72

Post by roflc0ptic »

tedivm wrote: post #11

This thing where people want to say horrible things without consequence is just so weird. I have the right to judge your statements just as much as you have a right to say them. I have the right to leave jobs when it turns out the people working there hate people like me, and companies have the right to hire people who aren't going to alienate future potential employees. When people bring up posts like this they neve…

> When people bring up posts like this they never say what the "heresies" are. People aren't getting "cancelled" for their takes on taxes.

There are plenty of examples of stuff that is way less clearcut "that's bad" than your example. See e.g. David Schor getting fired for retweeting a black professor's paper arguing riots are bad for black political movements.

See also, e.g. a friend ending our friendship because I gently challenged her fat acceptance rhetoric, "Anti-fatness is more toxic to women's bodies than fatness has ever been." At best it's not falsifiable, but really it is just not a realistic statement.

I don't personally spend a lot of time talking to my social milieu - left/liberal about the right, because there's not a lot to say. Watching my immediate vicinity devolve into... whatever you want to call the current moment, is frustrating as hell. The left has a lot of cultural power that the right simply doesn't, and watching it be wielded by fanatics towards ever morphing, questionable goals makes me want to push back.

Re: Heresy

#73

Post by Apocryphon »

Has anyone considered this whole phenomenon from a materialist analysis? Global society is more interconnected than before. The public discourse on social media platforms is huge. It’s also hugely polarized for multitudes of reasons. People (on the Internet) are getting into arguments with more people than ever before, usually with strangers.

From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thought of simply an act of automation. People identify reoccurring patterns of arguments, classify their adversary, and use a cached response. Thus, instead of spending the costly time and energy to respond to every argument in detail, you tag, use the appropriate function, and move on. And because modern society is so polarized, those functions tend to be fairly absolute- who wants to get dragged into another argument they’ve had before?

The problem is that modern discourse just can’t scale.

Re: Heresy

#75

Post by otterley »

zozbot234 wrote: post #23
mmastrac wrote: post #4

What I find most interesting are those arguing against "cancel culture" and the revival of heretics don't find issue with things like the "critical race theory" boogeyman and the "don't say gay"-style bills preventing teaching of sexuality topics. It's interesting how consistency of free thought isn't really the important thing here.

It's not "don't say gay", it's "don't subject, expect or mandate young kids to learn stuff about things like sexual orientation (or even gender identity) that they cannot possibly relate with prior to the biological changes of adolescence, and that are enough of a minefield for adults already. Leave this stuff to family and broader society for the time being."

It’s important to read all the parts of the law. The concerning parts are 1/the vagueness of it, and 2/enforceability though a private right of action (instead of having the state enforce it, parents get to sue the schools). It’s a minefield that educators must now trepidatiously tiptoe through. It makes their jobs significantly harder and more stressful.

And for what real benefit, exactly? How is this improving our society in any real way?

Re: Heresy

#76

Post by vinceguidry »

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote: post #53

Quoted post unavailable.

You should probably go look at the current state of diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria before giving your hot take. If caught and treated early, gender reassignment surgery can work miracles on a child's quality of life. It really shouldn't be seen any differently than other treatable birth defects.

Re: Heresy

#77

Post by mjburgess »

tedivm wrote: post #47
bufferoverflow wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is pure bigotry. Allowing children to know that gay people exist is not grooming. It isn't even close to grooming. Knowing that two men or two women can be married isn't grooming.

Yes, but the commeter is saying that he's read the bill -- and it actually says nothing about whether you can tell children that men can be married. I personally dont see where it prevents this at all.

As far as I can see, the explicit wording of the bill is just to delay "social sex education" till c. 8/9 years old -- right?

Re: Heresy

#79

Post by zozbot234 »

edent wrote: post #38
zozbot234 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "don't say gay", it's "don't subject, expect or mandate young kids to learn stuff about things like sexual orientation (or even gender identity) that they cannot possibly relate with prior to the biological changes of adolescence, and that are enough of a minefield for adults already. Leave this stuff to family and broader society for the time being."

Do you really think that young kids don't notice their parents affection for each other? Or that their older sibling is dating someone? Or that people get pregnant?

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#80

Post by pikma »

muglug wrote: post #36

> Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth I disagree. The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either). By banning those sorts of statements you’re not banning the truth, you’re just quieting assholes.

Is the reason it's sexist because it can be interpreted as "women are less capable than men"? You would say this other statement is false and sexist, correct?
Post reply on HN