Heresy • Hacker News Board

Re: Heresy

#431

Post by zozbot234 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

> The change in tone in the 80s he refers to is the ascendance of civil rights, feminism and gay rights

Source? These movements are more than 100 years old. (yes, even gay acceptance basically got its start in the early 19th c.!) Did they really progress all that much from the 1980s to the present day? This is very much non-obvious, at least to me.

Re: Heresy

#432

Post by galaxyLogic » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #407

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.

Exactly, it is most likely an attempt to shift the conversation to something else. Ad Hominem.

Re: Heresy

#433

Post by convolvatron » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

Osmose wrote: post #416

teakettle42 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

wow. I guess we should just stop speaking altogether

Re: Heresy

#434

Post by pjscott » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:51 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…

I'm confused by a few of your reactions.

> Bad - this sentence is telling part of population should just kill themself since they don’t exist.

Which part of the population are you referring to? People with intersex conditions like Klinefelter syndrome? They definitely exist, but I wouldn't say that "there are two biological genders" implies that they should kill themselves (wtf?) -- it's just omitting some edge cases. And it's a descriptive claim rather than a normative one.

> Bad. This sentence implicitly claims that girls are stupid.

How so? Saying "math is not racist" makes no mention of gender. This seems like a leap in logic, unsupported by any good-faith reading of the original text.

Re: Heresy

#435

Post by solatic » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:52 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.

You're equivocating between rational and emotional truths.

Rationally, only one thing can be true. This is what's most useful when applying the scientific method. Scientifically, there isn't such a thing as heresy - only rejecting the null hypothesis, or failing to reject it.

But people are not rational beings. The same message, delivered in the same way, can upset some people and not others. People do not react rationally. Trying to deny this (and claim that people are rational beings), in and of itself, denies a scientific truth.

Re: Heresy

#436

Post by qsort » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #345

This is one of the best reasons to learn a second language. Heretical concepts are often wrapped in layers of euphemism. For this reason, heresies tend to have problems crossing language barriers as that structure of euphemisms hasn’t necessarily been developed. One of the properties of the euphemism treadmill is that the mere existence of softer alternatives makes the original seem much worse than it was before. Spe…

+1.

Another related reason is that zealots love words. Big important-sounding words, preferably starting with capital letters (which kind of makes sense: arguments low on logic need to be high on rhetoric and wordplay to sound convincing).

Useful concepts easily translate: "chair", "sky", "screwdriver", "surjective function" are words in any language. On the other hand, difficulty in translation is a strong indication that the underlying message would be more appropriately described as "noise".

There are a few false positives (humor, contextual references) but they are fairly easy to spot.

Re: Heresy

#437

Post by kemayo » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #351

I don't read too much of PG's recent work. Does he attack classism with the same vigor as he does the left?

Mysteriously enough, the rich old man has his priorities aligned differently there.

Tangentially, I'd like to note "rich old man" as an example of one of those "just speaking an objective truth" things this essay supports, and the reason it can be problematic. Because objectively, Graham is a rich old man. (You could quibble about the precise boundary on "old", but he's 57 currently and that counts to me.) However, my saying it and calling attention to it certainly implies things, doesn't it?

Re: Heresy

#438

Post by Seattle3503 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

This read a lot like Eric Hoffer's "True Believer". I highly recommend the book to anyone who liked this essay.

Re: Heresy

#439

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #420

oh_my_goodness wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

Just a quibble, not to argue with your overall point- isn’t the modern CoE, as a mainline church, much closer to the prototypical SJW than a more conservative religion?

Re: Heresy

#440

Post by tlogan » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

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…

The first one is problematic and it needs have some context. Do you think that person can define its own gender which is different that genitalia which define sex?

The other ones are opinions and I’m not aware of anybody being canceled or fired for saying those.