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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#181

Post by 5560675260 »

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.

But I do decide how I view people and what kind of identities I construct for them in my mind.

Re: Heresy

#182

Post by mordae »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #149
Apocryphon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Anarchism also remains.

But we desperately need more anarchists. :-)

Perhaps people should read David Graeber and Cory Doctorow more?

The whole culture wars thing is a prime example of complementary schismogenesis in action, which was rather nicely presented in the Dawn of Everything from Graeber on couple thousand years old tribes.

Re: Heresy

#183

Post by [deleted] »

kjksf wrote: post #88
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."

It's not "leave this stuff to family". It's "you're going to jail if you dare to talk about it". That's the obvious violation of First Amendment: government cannot use force to dictate what you say. And this topic is not on the short list of exceptions (threats of violence etc.). And stepping back: realize you're being played by politicians. Republicans know well this bill is unconstitutional. They know there are top…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#184

Post by blockwriter »

Cpoll wrote: post #18

> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here. Which, looking at the replies, is a mistake, because everyone projects the least charitable interpretation and/or assumes the article is dog-whistling. The problem is that there are heresies and heresies, and conflating everything together isn't helpful. To give one extreme of a "heresy": It's reasonable to not want to associate with someone if they'r…

It is the infinite regress of orthodoxy that puts the essay’s rhetoric in jeopardy. I think the essay is internally consistent. American culture has built up an unsolvable Zeno’s paradox that no one seems interested in thinking through because barbarians prefer to live in a state of supernatural ignorance. “All conversation about this topic is flawed, therefore the original idea and the response is unable to influence my priors.”

Re: Heresy

#186

Post by newbamboo »

yojo wrote: post #67

Woo boy. Generally liked the concept for the essay, but this piece jumps out as problematic (or just poorly written): > The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. Really? He can’t think of a statement that is r…

You are expressing a literally racist opinion. “Only race y can express idea x.”

Unlike others, I don’t want to cancel you for being racist, though you clearly are, by your own admission.

This tolerance I show towards others allows dialog and thus enables human progress. Cancelling racists does the opposite. I support your right to think out load and bless the sacredness of your inner spirit even though you think racistically about free speech which imo is not really “free” speech.

Re: Heresy

#187

Post by mwcampbell »

ratww wrote: post #58
jroblak wrote: post #22

Genuinely funny coming from the dude who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter.

I'm really wondering why this is a problem. Sure, that might insulate him and put him in an echo chamber, but blocking is entirely his right, and he's the one who'll get the consequences from that. I also tend to do a similar thing in spaces I curate, and it's honestly better for mental health. Someone comes out from nowhere with something completely 180 degrees from what I say? That's not reality TV, that's my priva…

> I'm really wondering why this is a problem.

To take an example from my own experience, if I automatically tuned out anyone who said something bad about the requirement to make things accessible for blind people, I would deny myself the opportunity to learn how they think and become more effective in my advocacy or, possibly, revise my position.

Re: Heresy

#188

Post by morelisp »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #132
roflc0ptic wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Is this really a topic you needed to weigh in on? I’m assuming you weren’t concern trolling or playing devil’s advocate, but it’s very easy to imagine how a “gen…

Also, "I'm not friends with someone anymore after arguing with them" has historically not been called "cancel culture".

Certainly I wouldn't hang around with someone constantly reminding me which of my views they currently think aren't falsifiable.

Re: Heresy

#189

Post by skibob1027 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #37
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…

I think Graham's essay conflates two phenomenon when he describes heresy as thought that people equate to a crime. In fairness to him, societies have conflated them also. But if we're talking about modern American society, they are fundamentally different but can smell the same to somebody who doesn't see the distinction. A heresy is a position that damages trust. When someone publicly espouses a heretical position,…

“But nobody is going to jail for their heretical opinions.”

This is not true. You don’t have to look hard for examples of people being jailed in the US for holding unorthodox positions.

Defining heresy as “a position they damages trust,” implies that an accused heretic is at fault for believing something that “damages trust.” That is entirely subjective relative to the one whose trust was damaged.

Society has claimed heresy to suppress political and religious opponents since the beginning of human history. We have also shown a track record of being very wrong with regard to how we define heresy in the past.

Why should we believe that we are any better than our ancestors on this front?

Re: Heresy

#190

Post by glogla »

pjbeam wrote: post #20
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.

None of the competing thoughtcrime tribes seem to care about things like free thought, discourse, etc. This is the frightening part to me--people in the "other tribe" aren't worthy of things like due process, and authoritarian approaches are fine as long as they are aimed at the "other". I know history repeats itself but wow, c'mon.. the 20th century wasn't that long ago.

You can't put a jew and a nazi into a room and say "have a free thought discourse". Or a (american) white supermarics and (american) person of color. Or a homophobe and a gay person.

There can be no discourse when one side wants just to be left alone and the other wants to exterminate them.

You might want to rethink that 20th century lesson.

Post reply on HN