Live data from Hacker News

Heresy

paulgraham.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#161
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…

>This thing where people want to say horrible things without consequence

People say horrible things all the time! In fact, I reckon that if you said anything, a non-negligible fraction of the world's 7.5 billion people would think you horrible for saying it. It is not possible to avoid saying horrible things, especially out of context.

Even if you limit yourself to racist and sexist speech, how do you deal the fact that roughly 100% of the people on this planet, of ALL races and sexes, are themselves racist and sexist, and say racist/sexist things all the time? What are the consequences for a homophobic black person? What are the consequences for the Japanese woman who hates the Chinese? What are the consequences for the Libyan mother who circumcised her 4 daughters, with the support of her government and community?

The culture war that the left has started is an intellectually bankrupt grab for cultural power, who's primary effect has been to piss off the good people of the left, and to inspire a once-in-a-century outbreak of insanity on the right. I get that you want to make the world a better place, and it makes sense that punishing people for wrong views could make it so, but you've done the experiment now. Tell me, how is it going?

Re: Heresy

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube blocked in the US based on copyright grounds.

Title: Stewart Lee - These days, if you say you're English ... Is a clip from a BBC show (Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, worth a watch if you enjoy British comedy) so copyright block not too surprising depending on where you're located. He basically takes the piss out of a taxi driver. The stereotype goes that a taxi driver will share their "bloody immigrants" opinions with their fares whether the fares care about hea…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#164
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.

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#165
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,…

In practice it seems Popper's Paradox is frequently cited as a justification of force against heretics, accompanied by claims that the heresy is in and of itself a form of violence.

Re: Heresy

#167
post #52

Is the situation in the US that insane or is he fighting strawmen strapped to windmills?

Just read the comments in here. This is a whole lot of words to say: "I wish I could say things without facing consequences." As somebody else said in this thread, it's really rich to see Paul write about "implicitly ending the discussion" when he instablocks anybody on Twitter so easily.

> it's really rich to see Paul write about "implicitly ending the discussion"

Misquote. He said "implicitly ending the discussion by calling someone a x-ist", which is not the same at blocking someone who is annoying - blocking someone is just shutting your door, not making them lose their livelihood by defaming them.

Re: Heresy

#170

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.

Why is an individual students parents a subject for a classroom? That is utterly bizarre and it sounds like the teacher in your hypothetical is singling out the student.
Post reply on HN