Heresy • Hacker News Board

Re: Heresy

#411

Post by ScarletEmerald » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

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…

I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in v…

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#412

Post by skellington » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #376

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…

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 w…

I only listed a few of the hot button heretical positions without attempting to prove or disprove them.

You seem to be a very unaware person of the costs of heresy today.

1. Truckers in Canada were labelled as racist, removed from donation platforms, de-banked, etc.. because they were against vaccine mandates. How does body autonomy not contradict a medical mandate?

2. Much of the left, and leftist orgs say that the US should have an open border

3. Biological sexes then -- many on the left don't agree with this and saying it like JK Rowling for example got her on the heretic list

4. LOL you are plain nuts if you think the common position from the left is the US is not structurally racist

5. data is data, blacks are kills by cops at a lower proportion

6. LOL are you even aware of the "don't say gay" stuff happening in Florida?

7. LOL many have said math is racist including BLM and other leftist groups. The whole construct of logic, match, cause and effect thinking, etc.. You really aren't paying attention.

Re: Heresy

#413

Post by pen2l » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

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…

Test. (Please downvote me).

Re: Heresy

#414

Post by Beltalowda » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

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…

I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in v…

It just puts things in perspective; I'm not saying it's not something to be worried about, but you can both worry about something while also keeping the historical perspective in mind.

There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine, it's not really something especially unusual to be concerned about, or a very new "taboo" to be concerned about. It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview.

That there are some instances of unfounded hysteria doesn't mean there are also things that are not; but again, it's good to keep some perspective.

Re: Heresy

#415

Post by alfor » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

Osmose wrote: post #380

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can test if it’s a boogeyman by saying something awful and true about a ’victim’ group at your job. For good measure you can also say something awful and true about white man.

See what is the response.

Re: Heresy

#416

Post by Osmose » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #381

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…

You have invented a “harm principle” to be used when evaluating truth , and the fact that you think this is a cogent argument is scarier than anything Paul Graham might have said. One’s right to say something isn’t curtailed just because their saying it might intrude on your dogma more strongly than if it was said by someone with less social power.

If I'm following you correctly, you're implying that in order to debate with others to determine what truth is, you must have the freedom to say things without being bound by how the act of saying them would affect other people, right?

And I'm disagreeing and saying that, unless you have some sort of prior agreement with the people involved (which social media/the internet/readers of your blog don't have), you don't get to avoid consequences for the potential harm saying something might cause. Ultimately you are always talking to be heard by someone else, and all human interaction involves the risk of harming/angering someone else, but every day we control for that risk in how we say things and who we say them to.

Re: Heresy

#417

Post by tlogan » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

By reading comments here it seems like racists and sexists think this blog is written with intent to support their agendas.

I wish PG clearly spell out that is not ok to say that other people are less of a human. And with “heresy” he meant “vax mandates”, “gun control” and other general issues.

I’m ok dicusssing gun control, taxes, etc. but I (and anybody I know) are really not ok when somebody says “evolution does not end at neck”.

Re: Heresy

#418

Post by skellington » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

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…

You prove my point by most of your answers. You can't say a bunch of things without being a heretic. Non of your bizarre interpretations are part of the statements. They are a weird extended interpretation based on your internal fantasies.

You might as well as just pointed to a strange woman and yelled WITCH.

You religious fanatics are all the same.

Re: Heresy

#419

Post by zozbot234 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

pen2l wrote: post #413

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…

Test. (Please downvote me).

Heresy! Burn the witch! /s

Re: Heresy

#420

Post by tootie » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

oh_my_goodness wrote: post #408

tootie wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not arguing with the above poster. I'm expounding. The confidence people have in their moral compass may be overinflated but that doesn't mean it's without value. I'd take the judgment of a social justice warrior over the Church of England any day of the week. But also you have to recognize that not everyone is so self-important and can be rational. Modern liberal values are a massive improvement over the past even if not everyone applies them sensibly.