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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#311

Post by pikma »

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.

You can believe that gender is irrelevant and only sex matters, but you should still make an effort to be polite and nice to your coworkers - for example call them by the name they go for even if it is different from the one on their ID, use the pronouns that they prefer, etc.

Of course, like all things related to politeness, there is no absolute rule - if I change my pronouns every week I shouldn't expect people to keep up. But it should not be surprising that you can be fired for not making a minimal effort to be nice to your colleagues.

Re: Heresy

#312

Post by tomrod »

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.

> Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept

One funny thing I learned from studying high demand religions: you don't have to believe something for it to be true. It's existence is entirely orthogonal to a person's opinion.

Re: Heresy

#313

Post by skellington »

afc wrote: post #31

> The clearest evidence of this [that some x-ist statements may be true] 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. The argument doesn't support it's conclusion: it _could_ be that all potentially x-ist statements are false, but they are on…

You mis-paraphrased the argument. Your paraphrase insertion [] is incorrect. It should be:

[that such x-ist labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity]

Your conclusion is roughly his point, but his point holds independently of the "truth" of the underlying statement.

Re: Heresy

#314

Post by ByteJockey »

yojo wrote: post #255
ByteJockey wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really? He can’t think of a statement that is racist when a white person says it and not a black person? He can't think of a statement that is false when a white person says it and true when a black person says it (or vice versa).

The literal quote is about the “x-ism” of the statement, not its veracity. He goes on to extrapolate about truth later.

Yes, but it's in the context of someone already having said that an "x-ist" statement can't be true.

The quote in question is immediately after this paragraph:

> If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. 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. That's obvious enough that I'd guess most would answer no. But if they answer no, it's easy to show that they're mistaken, and that in practice such labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity.

Which the quote about the variation of a statement is given as an obvious counter argument once someone has already said that x-ist statements cannot be true.

Re: Heresy

#315

Post by tlogan »

3qz wrote: post #297
tlogan wrote: post #271

Can somebody list “heresies” which we are not allowed to say but they are ok? I cannot find a single one. But maybe I’m missing something.

It just means not having the right opinion on the current issue of the month. Or anything about the groups of people you’re not allowed to criticize.

Can you please be more specific? I really do not know what would be “heresy” now. Maybe I’m tweeting something which is “heresy” (and knowing that since nobody reads my tweets).

Re: Heresy

#316

Post by beaconstudios »

3qz wrote: post #297
tlogan wrote: post #271

Can somebody list “heresies” which we are not allowed to say but they are ok? I cannot find a single one. But maybe I’m missing something.

It just means not having the right opinion on the current issue of the month. Or anything about the groups of people you’re not allowed to criticize.

Which groups are deserving of criticism that they're currently protected from?

Re: Heresy

#317

Post by [deleted] »

wooque wrote: post #299
tlogan wrote: post #271

Can somebody list “heresies” which we are not allowed to say but they are ok? I cannot find a single one. But maybe I’m missing something.

Some dog breeds are smarter than the others and it's not because of purely economic factors

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#318

Post by NateEag »

throwaway82652 wrote: post #146
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…

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 sha…

I personally think I owe it to other people to object when they promote ideas that seem clearly false to me.

I could be mistaken about their idea's falsity, or they could be mistaken about its truth, but we'll never get closer to knowing if I don't engage.

Obviously I also owe them kindness and respect.

If they choose to interpret a kind, respectful disagreement as oppression or violence against them, they're hurting themselves.

In a mildly-related vein, it took me a long time to be able to recognize personal criticisms as a gift from the critic, and I'm still working on it, but the basics of that mindset shift seem to be settling in at this point. When someone tells me what they really think of me and my actions, they're engaging with me and giving me a chance to understand them a little better. I strive to be grateful for that even when the delivery is rude or hurts my feelings.

Genuine rejection and harm to others looks like physically injuring them, verbally abusing them, or barring them from societal spaces and services.

Telling someone what you think they're wrong about or how they're flawed is not usually doing violence or harm. Done in good faith, it's giving feedback and giving them the chance to show you how your own perceptions might be wrong.

Re: Heresy

#319

Post by newbamboo »

tomrod wrote: post #21
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.

Precisely my thoughts. > In the late 1980s a new ideology of this type appeared in US universities I don't think this was new. Liberality tends to go hand in hand with seeking reality, as discovering something and then adopting it requires intellectual big-tentism. Perhaps the author bemoans the rise of bureaucracy within the university, which has demonstrably increased? My concern is that these arguments about moral…

Is there an alt-right? People use that term, but they might as well be talking about unicorns. All these years, I’ve not met a single alt-right person despite being told this is a large and growing segment of our population, a pernicious and growing “threat to democracy!”Well, if they exist they look a lot like the old-right that voted in exactly the same fashion. If anything the right has gotten much more progressive. My statements here can all be quantified lest you disagree.

Re: Heresy

#320

Post by javajosh »

morelisp wrote: post #296
javajosh wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too complicated. The culture war was explicitly born of a left-wing power grab through cultural means, and it was foisted on college students starting in like 2014, and has had remarkable success (for its proponents). College kids believe a lot of stuff without knowing what, or why, and cancel culture rules are no different.

> The culture war was explicitly born of a left-wing power grab through cultural means The current culture war got stoked in the early 90s by conservatives because it got them votes, and has been escalating since then because it still does. Or are you going full Buchanan to claim black and gay people getting equal treatment in the civil arena is a "left-wing power grab"?

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN