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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#371

Post by ratww »

hunterb123 wrote: post #325
ratww wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is an ocean of difference between "teaching children about sexuality in an appropriate manner" and "grooming".

Comparing teaching to grooming and considering the two the same is a bad-faith argument.

Anything that could realistically be considered grooming would NEVER appropriate, even with your so called "parental consent". Even with adults.

Just because you call something "grooming" doesn't make it so.

Re: Heresy

#372

Post by jameshart »

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…

A statement, on its own, isn't "x-ist".

Choosing to make a particular statement at a particular time, in a particular context, in order to promote an "x-ist" agenda is "x-ist".

That's the same whether or not the statement is true.

Re: Heresy

#373

Post by trash99 »

tlogan wrote: post #365
skellington wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

- people should have body autonomy when it comes to vaccines Not heresy. - the US does not owe entry to illegal immigrants Not heresy. - there are two biological genders Bad - this sentence is telling part of population should just kill themself since they don’t exist. - the US is not structurally racist No heresy. This sentence needs to be context. - cops don't kill blacks at higher rates than whites Not sure. The s…

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#374

Post by tomrod »

newbamboo wrote: post #319
tomrod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 progressiv…

> Is there an alt-right

It's a nicer form of the term fascist.

Here is more information to start with, as well as several linked sources, compiled by people for your benefit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Re: Heresy

#375

Post by beaconstudios »

leephillips wrote: post #341
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.

(1) The concept of an inherent “gender” makes no biological nor logical sense. You can’t have been born in the “wrong body.” (2) Socrates was mostly right about democracy. (3) Seriously violent criminals, once convicted, should never bet let out of prison. (4) The US (and all nations) should have essentially open borders. (5) The US should make health insurance illegal and provide health care as a function of governm…

Doesn't everybody think their ideas are self evident?

As for the gender one: imagine you woke up in the body of somebody of the opposite sex tomorrow. Wouldn't you be in the wrong body?

My understanding is that the "wrong body" argument is actually not an accurate explanation of trans people's experience though.

Re: Heresy

#376

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

skellington wrote: post #327
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 ra…

Those aren't really heresies, more like you've been exposed to strawmen liberal positions probably from reading too much breitbart or something..

- people should have body autonomy when it comes to vaccines, never met anyone who disagreed with this, but it doesn't really contradict stuff like vaccine mandates.

- the US does not owe entry to illegal immigrants, also never met anyone who disagree with this, just that we should do more to help refugees.

- there are two biological genders, seems like you're confusing sex for gender as gender isn't a biological concept.

- the US is not structurally racist, it is but most people seem to agree with you, it's rather the heresy to say it is than to say it's not...

- cops don't kill blacks at higher rates than whites, not a heresy to say, just different interpretations of data.

- young children shouldn't be taught controversial topics (sex, etc.) In what world is this a heresy

- math is not racist ??? who said math was racist. There are some people who are racist who hide behind math though, but it's not the math that's racist it's the person.

Re: Heresy

#377

Post by alignItems »

The fundamental fallacy at play here is the human mental bias that we are at the peak of ethical advancement - and the corollary meta-bias that the historical witch hunters didn’t have this exact same bias themselves.

It doesn’t help that drama likes to portray them as intentionally evil.

In reality, most Christian zealots (or any historical enforcers of heresy) must have been very confident that they are doing the right thing. That their acts are sacred and justified. That they are on the right side of history.

Tolerance thrived when people realised that although you feel certain in your convictions you should have enough humility to let others express theirs, because everyone always thinks and always thought that they are right, yet they were obviously wrong most of the time. And we are likely to be too.

Re: Heresy

#378

Post by epicureanideal »

I’m happy to see Paul Graham taking this position.

One of the reasons I haven’t applied to YC is that I was getting the sense that he and YC might have the opposite opinion.

It seems plenty of SF Bay Area based startup, founder, investor networking groups are uncomfortable for people with opinions that might be considered heresy.

Re: Heresy

#379

Post by leephillips »

noelsusman wrote: post #368
leephillips wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) The concept of an inherent “gender” makes no biological nor logical sense. You can’t have been born in the “wrong body.” (2) Socrates was mostly right about democracy. (3) Seriously violent criminals, once convicted, should never bet let out of prison. (4) The US (and all nations) should have essentially open borders. (5) The US should make health insurance illegal and provide health care as a function of governm…

The only one of these that could fit Graham's definition of a heresy is the first one, and even then it would depend on what exactly you mean.

Some are surely more heretical than others. The reason I think most of them are heresies is because of the hysterical reactions they cause when I utter them.

Re: Heresy

#380

Post by Osmose »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #310
Osmose wrote: post #258

The behavior he's calling "heresy" here cannot be evaluated in a vacuum; these kinds of statements are all contextual, ESPECIALLY hinging on who is saying them. And the reason that is the case is because the consequences of saying something are different depending on who says them. Paul Graham is wealthy and influential, and actively tries to influence folks with essays like this. So when he says something, it is jud…

> If PG wanted to stop getting pushback for approaching what society thinks is an acceptable line, he totally can, he just needs to rebrand and get out of the startup game. No he doesn't. He can also opt to continue being exactly the brand that he is, remain firmly in the startup game, same push back against the self-appointed "social police", who only get away with their "policing" because people usually roll over.

I mean, I agree that practically PG will never feel any serious repercussions for saying whatever he wants _because_ of his wealth and influence. I don't think that's healthy (as wealth and influence are often afforded to people due to privilege or luck instead of ability, wisdom, or empathy) but it is how the world is currently.

The cancel culture boogeyman generally doesn't destroy lives, which makes one wonder why people like PG feel it so important that they need to write essays decrying it.

Post reply on HN