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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#321

Post by happytoexplain »

koonsolo wrote: post #216
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.

I guess the original article didn't take misleading statements into account. Because your statement might indeed be factually true, but very misleading. What about "Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true, when the statement is clear in its intentions and not misleading?". Would you agree with that?

An excellent point - see my reply to the parent about "13/52" for my personal opinion.

Edit: Note that my post implies that racial hatred/propaganda is a subset of racism, which you may or may not agree with semantically.

Re: Heresy

#322

Post by mjburgess »

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…

It's a "truth vs. order" debate. PG is in highly stable environments where order isnt an issue, so he is more concerned about truth. Generally, when "x-isms" are accused, the issue is the break down of social order in the environment in which the accusations are made.

It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace.

Most spaces aren't for discussing what's true, they're for getting-things-done. Stating truths in those spaces may, seemingly quite rightly, be prohibited.

Re: Heresy

#323

Post by kalimanzaro »

Kind of sleepy but maybe heresies are sort of like a self-published but hard to verify/reproduce social zero day. Imagine NSO describing their iphone exploit in vague terms on their very own homepage.. that would get a rise out of concernable folks for sure

Re: Heresy

#324

Post by trash99 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #195
subjectsigma wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abou…

[dead]

Re: Heresy

#325

Post by hunterb123 »

ratww wrote: post #210
Pxtl wrote: post #158

It's important to remember that this particular kind of "heresy" is not about hurting an imaginary God, but actual real people. Questioning the legitimacy of geocentrism is a victimless crime. Questioning the legitimacy of gay marriage or gay adoption or sexual transitioning has very defined, specific victims that face real actual harms from these attitudes. Right now parents of trans children are being accused of be…

There is an OCEAN of difference between saying what this article is saying and being okay with the recent wave of anti-trans/anti-LGBT conservatism in the US. Someone saying that "teaching about sexuality is akin to grooming" is clearly telling a lie. If someone gets shit for it, then the hubbub/cancellation is definitely not taking priority over the question of truth or falsity . Heck, if anything, the anti-trans/an…

> "teaching about sexuality is akin to grooming" is clearly a lie.

Out of curiosity is there an age limit on this statement for you?

Because while we're talking about heresies I'd like to say teaching sexuality to young children without parental consent is grooming.

What happened to asking for a permit slip signed by the parents if you want to give a sex talk.

It's a parent's rights issue, not a LGBTQ issue.

Re: Heresy

#326

Post by 3qz »

beaconstudios wrote: post #316
3qz wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For example, almost everything I’ve ever heard about white privilege is also true for Jewish people but it would be a career ending mistake to talk about the over representation of Jewish people in positions of power.

Re: Heresy

#327

Post by skellington »

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.

You must be pretty asleep to not be aware of the hot button topics now.

How about statements like:

- people should have body autonomy when it comes to vaccines - the US does not owe entry to illegal immigrants - there are two biological genders - the US is not structurally racist - cops don't kill blacks at higher rates than whites - young children shouldn't be taught controversial topics (sex, etc.) - math is not racist

Re: Heresy

#328

Post by emerged »

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.

By saying any of them, commenters must subject themselves to the witch hunt panel right here in front of our very eyes. Is that what you’re hoping for? “Anyone who is sick of being called a witch, come forward” (demanded while erecting the stake)

Re: Heresy

#329

Post by [deleted] »

gottebp wrote: post #242

G.K. Chesterton boiled this down pretty well: “The Special mark of the modern world is not that it is skeptical, but that it is dogmatic without knowing it. It says, in mockery of old devotees, that they believed without knowing why they believed. But the moderns believe without knowing what they believe - and without even knowing that they do believe it. Their freedom consists in first freely assuming a creed, and t…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#330

Post by emerged »

beaconstudios wrote: post #316
3qz wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Every single categorization of people other than white heterosexual men who are in the country legally?
Post reply on HN