Live data from Hacker News

Heresy

paulgraham.com

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#281
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…

I read that as "Truths can be stated by anyone, and are still true". If you are saying some truths can only be said or are only true for some groups... We'll have to agree to disagree.

What is true is not relevant in many cases.

Consider looking at piece of art and saying "I think this part is badly done". This is a very different statement depending whether it is the author saying it, the author's mentor saying it, unrelated person saying it to their friends, or the same unrelated person writing it on twitter. And it doesn't matter whether it is true - it might not even be possible to say, objectively, whether that part is actually badly done.

Same goes for talking about groups of people. Criticising a movement as a member internally, as a member on twitter and as a member of opposing movement is very different, no matter whether it is true or not. And movements are (usually) voluntary - it matters even more when talking about groups of people by categories they can't chose, like cultures, sexual orientations, skin color, etc.

Re: Heresy

#283

This essay would have been more useful had it included a treatment of actual Catholic heresy accusations and trials. I could give my own account of how I understand it, but I would have liked to have heard PGs characterization. Instead we're stuck with an modernist take ungrounded in history.

Yeah, while I’m not a huge fan of modern radicalization (or perhaps just it’s resurgence) I still find “cancel culture” more tolerable than torture and murder.

Re: Heresy

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The two eras and their initial conditions aren’t even comparable. We have strong state constitutions and the procedural rule of law now. We use science instead of religion to explain mysterious phenomena. Those aren’t being torn down any time soon over spite. We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion; our entire system of government would have to change first.

Your argument is basically a “slippery slope” argument, and this is a good example of why these types of arguments are so weak and problematic.

Re: Heresy

#285

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 thoug…

Agreed on the individual side. It's a response to decision fatigue. You cannot effectively understand every individual, their opinions and intentions, while scaling your personal "social network" up to thousands of people. So instead you apply a label and move on. But "modern discourse just can't scale" is a bit of a defeatist mindset. Surly there is a solution out there for reducing polarization.

> Surly there is a solution out there for reducing polarization.

Well, there's compassion. But that's always been rather difficult, and seems to have fallen out of fashion...

Maybe you meant a technical solution though.

Re: Heresy

#286
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.

> instablocks anybody on Twitter

This is hardly implicit.

Re: Heresy

#287
> There are many on the far left who believe strongly in the reintegration of felons (as I do myself), and yet seem to feel that anyone guilty of certain heresies should never work again.

This is a great point. I’ve seen the same with attitudes towards homeless people where they can harass people on the street all day long and get treated like they’re a poor victim who has no agency, but a “normal” person can get fired over an awkward compliment. It makes no sense to me.

Re: Heresy

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. Nobody is literally losing their life over this.

You think it is due to some virtue these braindead activists possess that they don't kill people? Sorry, I mean 'intolerant people'.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase?
Post reply on HN