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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#141

Post by kurthr »

brohoolio wrote: post #45
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."

The teachers can’t address why someone in the class has two dads without risk of being sued. Heck the wording is vague enough you might not discuss marriage. The ambiguity in the law is there as a feature to hush normal conversations that might otherwise happen.

Arguably, using "Mom" or "Dad", or even gendered pronouns is restricted. Of course not using these would upset the very people who wrote the laws, which is another part (beyond the enforceability) that makes them insane.

Re: Heresy

#142

Post by newbamboo »

Remarkable to see the lack of self awareness in this thread. “It’s not censorship when I do it!!!!” It scares me to have so many educated people that aren’t in touch, aren’t even in control, if their own minds. My faith in free will ever diminishes.

Re: Heresy

#143

Post by kijin »

eganist wrote: post #25
baggy_trough wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me.

> Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me. Here's the question: Are you tolerant of people who do? Or do you make the lives of those people (wh…

The latter is a fairly broad concept with multiple shades and blurry lines within. Which is why people with good intentions can still disagree badly on whether something someone did was okay or not.

Has GP crossed the line merely by expressing his/her/their opinion? This probably depends on his/her/their social status as well. The CEO of a company saying something in an official meeting carries a different weight for all employees than some random employee saying the same thing.

Or does GP need to say or do something personal to someone in order to be considered to have crossed the line? Be careful there: add too many constraints and we will end up giving a free pass to people who genuinely offend and cause serious discomfort to those around them.

These are the kinds of issues about which we as a society need to have reasonable discussions and make consensus-building efforts, but it all descends into name-calling too soon.

Re: Heresy

#144

Post by ratww »

baggy_trough wrote: post #17
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…

Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me.

It depends.

I know people who thinks like you, but they don't shut the fuck about these things, and take every possible the opportunity to proselytise about it.

I've seen it happening in workplaces, for example. But also parties, random people on the street.

Not shutting the fuck about it is fucking annoying and if it's in the workplace I'll be complaining the fuck about it until you stop and/or looking for another job.

Now, I'm a 100% neutral part on this, and even me don't wanna hear about your bullshit. Imagine now if you were to use this to actively hurt people.

Re: Heresy

#145

Post by mjburgess »

tedivm wrote: post #85
mjburgess wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the right have hold of corporate culture however? I think the issue is the consequences of speech which are permissible themselves -- I think being shunned by a friendship group seems always permissible. Being marginalized in one's workplace, shunned by one's colleges, and so on -- this seems far less permissible. I dont think this is a strictly left/right issue; and what today is called "left" is rather a kinda…

I think it's ridiculous to think the left has hold of corporate culture. I think a lot of different companies have a lot of different cultures, and I think for the majority of companies the right holds power. I think that tech companies are a major exception to this, in part because it seems that a much larger percentage of queer people are in tech (both directly and indirectly, via companies that support tech)- but…

Yes, which is why i say "corporate correcntess" isnt actually leftwing. But I do think many self-describing "leftwing" people are actually, in this sense, just peddling a certain corporate respectability ideology. Their upper-middle class concerns of who's who in the elite culture, is more-or-less just using the trappings of leftwing thought to beat a path to the top. And corporations gladly play the same game as a branding exercise, today ran by the same upper-middle who delusionally think their use of "diversity" corresponds to something actually morally significant.

As far as where this culture is present, at least: tech, academia, etc. Ie., the places where we do see this counter-reaction. Though the counter-reaction is dressed in the language of free speech -- I think its more just about the capture of corporate policy, in these industries, by a certain descendent of political correctness.

People have to turn up to work in these industries, or otherwise participate in them, whilst holding their nose at this mawkish soapboxing display of which rich idiot is "changing the world" all the while those who are repulsed by this are ever-more seen as inherently immoral for not singing from the same hymm sheet.

If we recast this whole issue as one where previously political activity has spilled over into most areas of life, such that many now cannot espcae it --- then we see what the problem is.

It isnt free speech. Its the lack of quiet places. It's that if you want to work in these areas, you're bombarded with the loud noises of loud opinions that you can't escape.

Re: Heresy

#146

Post by throwaway82652 »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #72
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…

I'm very confused as to why you're suggesting that people being disagreeable or unreasonable is a thing that is specific to "the current moment" or is specific to any one political identity. But please correct me if I misunderstood.

Edit: Another response brought up a good point. Your pushing back on body image issues seems pretty tone deaf. Those are pretty personal and the point there is that it doesn't help to shame people for being overweight. Nobody responds well to that, it usually just causes hurt feelings. You can still promote healthy lifestyles without making it about "anti-fatness".

Re: Heresy

#148

Post by ekianjo »

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…

> What's always interesting to me is that these "free speech absolutists" are explicitly calling out the left here

Looks like someone didnt understand the article, because PG directly addressed that point.

Re: Heresy

#149

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Apocryphon wrote: post #87
ratww wrote: post #33

I feel like a pariah sometimes in those discussions. I agree with PG in that I'm also not too happy with the "only X can be x-ist", but on the other hand I'm also not a conspiracy nut that talks non-stop about "critical race theory". I'm also not free speech absolutist, as I'm ok with things like European law criminalizing Nazism or glorification of genocide. I feel like I'm constantly against three very radical grou…

When liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism have all failed you, perhaps the only path left is communitarianism.

Anarchism also remains.

Re: Heresy

#150

Post by eadmund »

mcronce wrote: post #29
baggy_trough wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me.

Yes, it does. You don't get to decide for other people who or what they are.

> You don't get to decide for other people who or what they are.

Yeah, but neither do they. There is such a thing as objective truth. I have no right to be treated as four-legged, because I do not have four legs. Neither can I claim a right to be treated as the Queen of Englang, because I am not the queen of England. Nor do I have a right to be treated as a member of the opposite sex because I am not in fact a member of the opposite sex.

Post reply on HN