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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#191

Post by muglug »

Beltalowda wrote: post #89
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.

These kind of "x-ist" statements are fine for things that are overtly x-ist. The problems happen when things are more murky; for example when you start exploring the reasons why there are few women running Fortune-500 companies. If you start shutting down things with "it's x-ist!" then you may never find out the reasons (and by extension, how to do something about them!) "It's x-ist" is an assertion, as well as an ac…

Lots of people have studied the question of why women aren’t running Fortune 500 companies, and unsurprisingly the answers have a lot to do with sexism.

The average age of a Fortune 500 CEI is 58. Talk to any female executive of that age and they’ll have many examples of opportunities they missed out on because of their gender.

My mum was told explicitly that she wouldn’t have got the job she was in if they had known she had a baby at home, because it was a “high-pressure job”. They offered to reassign her, she refused, and she didn’t tell her colleagues about her husband or kids for another year, for fear of having similar opportunities denied.

Re: Heresy

#192

Post by Aeolun »

eadmund wrote: post #130
pikma wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what it means to "deny the existence" of someone? I see this expression often, but I'm genuinely puzzled by what it means in practice. I agree with you that "purposely misgendering one's colleagues" should lead to firing, but I think this article isn't about that. It's about people who are tolerant of others and in general try to be nice people, but just disagree about certain things - for example, ho…

Quoted post unavailable.

Society deems it so? If you were of the opinion you were a cat the diagnosis would be that you are delusional.

Still, if there is no other negative effects, then accepting them as a different gender seems like a simple way to ‘heal’ the condition. Certainly in the absence of a way to fix it in the other direction.

I don’t think a lot of people would be well served by accepting that someone is a cat.

Re: Heresy

#193

Post by lexicality »

Aeolun wrote: post #86
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 don’t think people want to say bad things without consequence. They want to be able to discuss a topic without the rabid tone police descending on it. Like, I say I cannot understand trans people at all , and people will jump on me because I’m rejecting them and making them feel bad, when I’m just stating a fact. There’s a lot of this stuff.

> I say I cannot understand trans people at all

Seems like a weird thing to say. I don't understand FORTRAN at all and as such I stay away from people discussing it.

Why do you want to tell trans people that you don't understand them? Wouldn't it be easier to read some literature so you can gain a basic understanding?

Re: Heresy

#194

Post by emerged »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #160
MrSlonzak wrote: post #50

We live in New Middleages. Just substitute religion for ideology and suddenly it all makes sense.

maybe read a book or a wikipedia article about what the middle ages were like

what they ended up like, or how they got there? because I’d rather note and correct the trend /before/ we start torturing and killing people in public display.

Re: Heresy

#195

Post by happytoexplain »

subjectsigma wrote: post #159
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.

THIS is exactly what some are afraid of. People taking statements, interpreting them with their own mental models, and coming to the conclusion the person who made that statement is x-ist. Your own comment literally provides multiple interpretations of that statement and you chose the "sexist" one to be the default!?

"Implicitly sexist" does not mean "sexist by default". "Implicitly" is a reasonable qualifier here. You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. In English, "very few" implies "very much fewer than the alternative", but in strict logical construction, it does not, hence the parent's point and my remark about being a robot.

Re: Heresy

#196

Post by [deleted] »

jroblak wrote: post #22

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

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#197

Post by tlogan »

tedivm wrote: post #109
pikma wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what it means to "deny the existence" of someone? I see this expression often, but I'm genuinely puzzled by what it means in practice. I agree with you that "purposely misgendering one's colleagues" should lead to firing, but I think this article isn't about that. It's about people who are tolerant of others and in general try to be nice people, but just disagree about certain things - for example, ho…

>I agree with you that "purposely misgendering one's colleagues" should lead to firing, but I think this article isn't about that. I do think the article is about that. I think it was purposefully left vague so he could take advantage of people giving the benefit of the doubt. I don't think people's pronouns should be up for debate, and I believe PG does.

This is the problem of this “free speech”. They think it is “free speechl to call one “he” even if that one prefers being called “she”.

Anyway, maybe GP is talking about other “heresies”.

Re: Heresy

#198

Post by yojo »

newbamboo wrote: post #186
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 rac…

I think you’re injecting a lot into my comment that wasn’t there. I never talked about cancelling anyone. I talked about whether speakers are always equally qualified to make the same statement.

Here’s an example: There are words that have historically been used as slurs that have been reclaimed by the people they were used against.

If you are not a member of that group, your use of the word invokes the history of its use, and is likely x-ist. As a member, you are likely able to use it.

Re: Heresy

#199

Post by Osmose »

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…

The problem is that he has way more influence in the world than you or I due to his status, money, connections, etc. The amount of harm resulting from him being in an echo chamber is much larger, especially since he actively posts in order to influence large amounts of people.

People judging you for your blocking is one of the prices you're socially expected to pay in return for those privileges.

Re: Heresy

#200

Post by ZoomerCretin »

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.

I find these "the same people who argue for/against X are the same people who argue for/against Y" comments odd. Do you have a specific example of this outside of politicians*, or are you lumping everyone in camps X and Y together without proof of significant overlap?

*Politicians don't start from "I believe X/Y, let's do something about it." They start from "How do I get my voters agitated and eager to vote for me, and what position should I take on controversial issues X/Y during an election year to achieve this goal?" Politics/electioneering is showmanship first. Silly things like real personal political beliefs only get in the way of politicians' end goal of power.

Post reply on HN