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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#401

Post by ByteJockey »

eganist wrote: post #392
ByteJockey wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're the one who is confused here. The paradox of tolerance was not conceived to describe people who merely hold opinions. To quote Popper (this is also quoted in the wiki link you posted): > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion,…

> But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics. Neither was I. Nor do I think Paul should be "rounded up" either. Just that I believe his mode of thinking is flawed. I expressed an opinion just as he did.

> Neither was I.

Then I may have misinterpreted your statement. Would you mind elaborating on exactly which part of the essay confuses the paradox of intolerance with heresy?

Re: Heresy

#402

Post by Karunamon »

skibob1027 wrote: post #189
shadowgovt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Graham's essay conflates two phenomenon when he describes heresy as thought that people equate to a crime. In fairness to him, societies have conflated them also. But if we're talking about modern American society, they are fundamentally different but can smell the same to somebody who doesn't see the distinction. A heresy is a position that damages trust. When someone publicly espouses a heretical position,…

“But nobody is going to jail for their heretical opinions.” This is not true. You don’t have to look hard for examples of people being jailed in the US for holding unorthodox positions. Defining heresy as “a position they damages trust,” implies that an accused heretic is at fault for believing something that “damages trust.” That is entirely subjective relative to the one whose trust was damaged. Society has claimed…

>This is not true. You don’t have to look hard for examples of people being jailed in the US for holding unorthodox positions.

This rings alarm bells for me. Could you give an example of someone jailed in the US for the mere holding of an unorthodox position, rather than a concrete action, in the last, say, 30 years?

Re: Heresy

#403

Post by tootie »

alignItems wrote: post #377

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 r…

The fallacy that Graham is espousing seems to be that moral superiority (or even moral improvement) is utterly impossible and any attempt to raise the level of discourse is oppression. The change in tone in the 80s he refers to is the ascendance of civil rights, feminism and gay rights. All incredibly worthy movements. The fact that some adherents make mistakes is human nature. The notion that they can't be debated is patently false. The anti-progress faction is still very very powerful. Plenty of unequivocal sexists and racists face no punishment.

Re: Heresy

#404

Post by Angostura »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #366
Beltalowda wrote: post #155

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would…

The speed with which society is moving is also a factor. Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. I think Graham is slightly missing the point about our period. It's not that heresy is on the up, so much as it's on the move. Outrage is a homeless beast. We're in an Orwellian age where it changes with the seasons, so what is h…

> Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise.

That’s an interesting, because I suppose at the moment that group would include all through have been historically or currently disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Today’s axiom, at least in liberal countries is ‘you can punch up, but not down’ somewhat different in totalitarian regimes.

Re: Heresy

#406

Post by dangoor »

This reminds me of a Popehat article I finally got around to reading yesterday: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...

In that article, Popehat talks about the need to define cancel culture and understand how the free speech rights of the first speaker intersect with the free speech and association rights of people that respond.

I think the most useful aspect of PG's article is that he does actually define what he means by heresy:

> Structurally there are two distinctive things about heresy: (1) that it takes priority over the question of truth or falsity, and (2) that it outweighs everything else the speaker has done

PG doesn't give any examples, but I do think that trying to be clear around definitions in order to be able to say "is this an example of heresy at work?" or "has this person been unfairly cancelled?" is a valuable exercise.

FWIW, my main reason for commenting is that I find Popehat's article to be a valuable addition to the conversation because it's specifically addressing the "cancel culture" terminology rather than trying to swirl a new term (heresy) into the mix.

Re: Heresy

#407

Post by tootie »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #393

Another word for heresy is political correctness. The problem with it is you can attack anybody you dislike with very little cost to you because you stand with a large crowd agreeing with you. And you don't even have to understand the issues since the opinion you put out is commonly accepted. It in fact might not be your opinion but you can still use it to attack opponents. Political correctness is a quite naturally…

Political correctness was an epithet invented by conservatives who opposed things like women's rights, gay rights etc. The fact that advocates can be mistaken doesn't overshadow how wrong the other side is to be unwilling to acknowledge injustice.

Re: Heresy

#408

Post by oh_my_goodness »

tootie wrote: post #403
alignItems wrote: post #377

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 r…

The fallacy that Graham is espousing seems to be that moral superiority (or even moral improvement) is utterly impossible and any attempt to raise the level of discourse is oppression. The change in tone in the 80s he refers to is the ascendance of civil rights, feminism and gay rights. All incredibly worthy movements. The fact that some adherents make mistakes is human nature. The notion that they can't be debated i…

Points. On the other hand, how carefully did you read the comment you're responding to?

Re: Heresy

#409

Post by vorpalhex »

mjburgess wrote: post #322
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 discuss…

> 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.

You can not make progress in a land of fiction. Propaganda is a stop sign, not a tool for productivity.

Re: Heresy

#410

Post by tootie »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #243

Great essay as always, however the deliberate withholding of examples is irritating me. I'm not looking for witches to burn, but names or examples of "grumpy, censorious people in a group — the ones who are always first to complain when something violates the current rules of propriety." would be helpful to identify the described mentality.

It's straw man after straw man. Facile and reductive. Basically a long form version of "you can't say anything anymore!" Could have been written by Archie Bunker.
Post reply on HN