Heresy • Hacker News Board

Re: Heresy

#481

Post by twofornone » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:08 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…

These claims that the "don't say gay" legislation stifles free speech are dishonest. These are teachers, agents of the state, in a professional setting, not private citizens expressing opinions off the clock. If I'm paying taxes for public education then I should have a say in what gets taught, and that includes culture.

Re: Heresy

#482

Post by woodruffw » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

c1b wrote: post #455

marricks wrote: post #444

He really needs examples provided. Which group do you think is on his mind? - Palestine and how many academics have been fired or silenced for supporting them l? Nathan J Robinson was let go form The Guardian for a joke about Palestinian treatment. - The score of labor organizers fired in the tech and food service industry for expressing their right to organize? - Tech workers getting fired for what could be claimed…

So you just gave three examples off the top of your head but you need to make sure he picked the right one..?

I believe the author was pointing out that pg is selective in his application of "heresy."

Re: Heresy

#483

Post by giorgioz » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

Paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Paul Graham is intolerant of intolerants of intolerance. I think to solve the paradox the way to go is not to solve by principle but weight on how much intolerance you are applying in order to prevent some other intolerance to someone else.

"Your freedom ends where someone else begins"

EXAMPLE

Person A: People from group X are more likely to be BAD at math.

Person B: Don't be racist/sexist/x-ist.

Person C (Paul Graham): Hey B, you are using x-ist but is the statement true or false? If the statement from A is true, then A should be allowed to say it without B calling him/her x-ist.

Well it depends on what's the approximation and opinionated consequences. Maybe group X is worse at math by a small percentage 1% and A is removing numbers to make a larger generalization that loose its context and is just demeaning of the group X. This is solvable by stating actual figures without implying consequences from it. Person A should have said: The study ALFA showed results where group X was 10% more likely to be BAD at math than group Y and Z. I will pass you the link to the paper of the study so you can review it.

Re: Heresy

#484

Post by photochemsyn » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

I think the author rather exposes his ideological biases in this paragraph:

> "The most notorious 20th century case may have been the Cultural Revolution. Though initiated by Mao to undermine his rivals, the Cultural Revolution was otherwise mostly a grass-roots phenomenon. Mao said in essence: There are heretics among us. Seek them out and punish them. And that's all the aggressively conventional-minded ever need to hear. They went at it with the delight of dogs chasing squirrels."

A more balanced approach would have included the rise of authoritarian fascism in Germany as an example of the persecution of the heretics, namely any who opposed the power of the Party or questioned the validity of the 'untermenschen' concept that relegated so many groups - Slavs, Jews, homosexuals, political dissidents to 'unperson' status. Indeed, Hitler's acolytes - like Mao's - also 'went at it with the delight of dogs chasing squirrels.' A rather popular book was published about this phenomenon that's worth reading, called "Hitler's Willing Executioners."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/784848.Hitler_s_Willing_...

In any case, whenever a commentator chooses to exclusively focus on fascist atrocities or communist atrocities when examing '20th century atrocities', you can be sure they have a severe ideological bias and are hardly honest interlocutors. In this context, 'x-ist' could refer to either communist or fascist, although I suspect the author is implying 'racist' or perhaps 'classist'?

Re: Heresy

#485

Post by kbenson » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

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…

> Also it is no longer power that metes out punishment

There are different types of power, and what I think we're seeing is that whip traditionally those different types of power have rested in the same individuals, that's not so true anymore.

Financial and political power is still mostly where it's always been. Social power has been democratized far more and far more quickly in recent years, to the point that those same groups that have the financial and political power no longer mostly control it.

I think the mercurial appearance of how that power is wielded is also easily explained. Like any revolutionaries that take power, they are often unrestrained in it's use as they are not used to the problems of wielding it.

Whether the status quo can ever develop into a more restrained arbiter if social justice remains to be seen. As long as the young are the majority of the social scenes used in the decision process (the social networks of the moment) I doubt it, but the demographics of these networks are shifting year by year and those that have been using them longer are learning the trade and solidifying their bases, and those ones making enough money to also join the other power structures. Perhaps in another decade or two this will just be viewed as another period of large change, like civil rights and woman entering the workplace, and the social narrative will again be controlled like it traditionally has.

For most I imagine that thought has parts of both comfort and dread.

Re: Heresy

#486

Post by darepublic » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #315

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.

Can you please be more specific? I really do not know what would be “heresy” now. Maybe I’m tweeting something which is “heresy” (and knowing that since nobody reads my tweets).

If you use master branch on git you are racist. Inexplicably the word is still ok in other contexts like chess master. Although maybe that needs to be updated too. What's the harm in changing the term to chess expert I ask you? Are you going to get so hung up defending the use of a word?

Re: Heresy

#487

Post by teddyh » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #33

I feel like a pariah sometimes in those discussions. I agree with PG in that I'm also not too happy with the "only X can be x-ist", but on the other hand I'm also not a conspiracy nut that talks non-stop about "critical race theory". I'm also not free speech absolutist, as I'm ok with things like European law criminalizing Nazism or glorification of genocide. I feel like I'm constantly against three very radical grou…

I’m reminded of Philip K. Dick’s The Chromium Fence (1955):

’I’m not!’ Walsh shouted futilely. ‘I’m not a Purist and I’m not a Naturalist! You hear me?’

Nobody heard him.

— https://web.archive.org/web/20150419173332/http://american-b...

Re: Heresy

#488

Post by xboxnolifes » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #331

morelisp wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important? If anything, I find it valuable to see perspectives that fall outside of my own experience. I was born in 1985. I don't remember what the world was like in 1985, or 1975, but I'm eager to learn about it to see what we've gained since then, or maybe lost, to better guide the path we should take in the future.

> I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important?

It's related because people are incredibly biased toward liking things "as they were" when growing up. I'd be more impressed by accounts of people growing up in a time before the one they are praising.

Re: Heresy

#489

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

wrren wrote: post #451

Osmose wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your conflating harming people with causing them anger is very much part of the problem. 'Harm' used to mean something much more severe; now it basically means anything at or above pissing someone off. The same concept creep has occurred when it comes to the word 'violence' too. As a society, we long ago drew red lines at behaviours that are violent or harm people, but thanks to these deliberate redefinitions, extrem…

Even the absence of speech has also been described in those same terms. This category of rhetorical double bind is counterproductive to progress.

Re: Heresy

#490

Post by kemayo » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 5:13 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…

I think you're exaggerating what qualifies as a "heresy". It's different from people thinking you're wrong, loudly disagreeing with you, or even not wanting to associate with you once your opinion is known. If we agree with Graham's definition, you need to be fired for saying them.