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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#501

Post by Beltalowda »

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…

All except the first one (possibly? I'm actually not 100% sure what your view is since it's phrased a bit confusing) aren't really "heresies" in the sense of "people will vigorously attack you for it". They are perhaps way outside of mainstream politics, but that's not quite the same thing.

I happen to think that private ownership cars should be severely restricted, perhaps even outright banned. I think everyone will be better off. It's a pretty hot take and something of a "heresy", but no one is going to call my employer to get me fired, or round up a gang on Twitter to badger me over it. They make thing I'm an idiot, but that's perfectly fine.

Re: Heresy

#502

Post by jzdziarski »

Graham seems to have missed the mark here. What he’s describing as the unjust labeling of x-ism usually isn’t related to the deviation from a norm, insomuch as it is the prejudices behind that deviation. He argues that truth is ignored, but it’s not the truth that’s usually at issue in such matters, it is the manner of delivery of whatever truth may be, filtered through a set of prejudices the hearer is offended by. The hearer then can either utilize the thought terminating x-ist label, and walk away, or attempt to address those prejudices directly. In the former, they are saying, “because I have identified these prejudices in the way you’ve presented your case, I cannot give credence to any of the truth you are arguing”. Reasonable, but less than ideal. The latter - and often better response is, “that’s x-ist and let me tell you why.” That’s how you cut through the BS and have a productive conversation. I hope this is what he was trying to convey, but didn’t quite get there.

What he seems to have missed in separating truth from prejudices is important to recognize. This is an expected communications problem in a society that struggles with decency, and decency is what’s at issue here - not truth. Because at least one party lacks decency, they’ve lost their credibility to convey any truth. The other party may lack tolerance, but that intolerance is, at least usually, about those prejudices, and not any underlying truth.

Regardless, actual heresy - of the biblical type that Graham is trying to use to support his argument here - has historically been more based on threatening a power structure, such as was the case with Martin Luther, for example. Ironically here, the tables were turned, and the “heretic” (Luther) presented factual information while it was the hearer that reeled with prejudice. The two cases are about as much alike as a camel and a spork. I am surprised he tried to make the comparison. Nonetheless, if that is what he’s trying to argue, then he’s seemingly suggesting the fault is always on the listener for being offended. In the cases Graham is describing though, it is far more likely to be the speaker who wraps whatever truth there might be into vitriol brought into the conversation. It at least would have made for a good essay to point out both possibilities.

Tl;Dr: truth always falls victim to prejudice, on either side, which is why we should work to identify and root out our own prejudices before engaging.

Re: Heresy

#503

Post by darkengine »

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…

The exact example you mentioned (a person's weight being taboo) was my first "culture shock" when learning Japanese. My mind was opened to the multitude of prejudices carried just by speaking English many times after that.

At one point I kept a Twitter account where I tweeted random thoughts about the world only in Japanese. Even though it hardly had any followers, there was something really freeing about this. It forced me to choose my words precisely (lacking a deep abstract vocabulary, it required careful perusal of the Japanese dictionary), and I also didn't feel subject to the cultural burdens of English (as for the burdens of Japanese, I wasn't yet aware of what they were). I definitely recommend to language learners keeping a little diary in their second language, once they get to a point where they are able to.

Re: Heresy

#504

Post by solatic »

convolvatron wrote: post #473
solatic wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

no one should dispute that people might react emotionally to statements. that doesn't necessarily imply that all speakers should accept the burden to be so inoffensive that _no_ listener would react negatively.

> that doesn't necessarily imply that all speakers should accept the burden to be so inoffensive that _no_ listener would react negatively.

No, it doesn't imply that. But let's unpack the presumption behind your statement.

We all know that there are people in the world with whom we have deep and fundamental disagreement. Religious people are aware that there are atheists; classical liberals are aware that there are autocrats and theocrats, etc. Does that, in and of itself, upset us so deeply that we take offense at it? I daresay no.

What causes one to take offense is the uttering of "heresy" by someone nearby, where such utterance affects them personally. Which means that it is incumbent upon us to know who is listening to us. There is a wide emotional gulf between a preacher who preaches to his congregation and a preacher who proselytizes and seeks converts. Same message, different audience. In the first case, the preacher is among fellows. In the second, the preacher is among those who may not be so open to what he has to say. The preacher who decides to proselytize fundamentally accepts an additional burden, if the preacher has any hope at succeeding. And a preacher who does not accept that burden, does not even recognize that such a burden exists, who tries to communicate the same message in the same way regardless of who is in the audience, well, that preacher should only see his failure as foreseeable and expected.

"Preacher", above, if it wasn't clear, is not a religious term. It refers to anybody who has any kind of message that actually tries to persuade others, rather than merely seeking the empathy of like-minded friends and family.

Re: Heresy

#505

Post by cultpfog »

prtkgpt wrote: post #78

Why is it flagged?

Probably people irritated at HN being a cult of personality for Paul Graham. He's not that interesting a writer, but people here swallow his literary turds like they're pure gold.

Re: Heresy

#506

Post by hikingsimulator »

NoraCodes wrote: post #498

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine what that would be like. I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politic…

I have nothing to add. Thank you.

Re: Heresy

#507

Post by confidantlake »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #113
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,…

>> nobody is going to jail for their heretical opinions. They can have privileges revoked or be passed over for promotion or advancement, but that's how organizing people to do hard things has always worked. That's because no trials are held in modern mob justice for heretics. The mob justice punishments are more like lynchings. Medieval heretics could at least expect a "witch hunt"-style trial. The monarchy or churc…

They are not like lynchings in one pretty fundamental way, ie they are not being lynched.

Re: Heresy

#508

Post by jimkleiber »

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…

I read it as he wants pushback—that he wants to engage in a back and forth discussion, almost like two people in a fight pushing each other, not a fight where people push each other for a minute and then the other pulls out a gun. I understood his definition of heresy as a tool for wanting to end debate, not deepen it.

Re: Heresy

#509

Post by nonrandomstring »

kbenson wrote: post #485
nonrandomstring wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Yes. What we see as mob rule now may mature into something not unlike a real polis. But (see my recent comment on vigilante speeding cameras) technology may give us a civil arms race that just drives a wedge further down the middle.

Re: Heresy

#510

Post by BlueTemplar »

Apocryphon wrote: post #73

Has anyone considered this whole phenomenon from a materialist analysis? Global society is more interconnected than before. The public discourse on social media platforms is huge. It’s also hugely polarized for multitudes of reasons. People (on the Internet) are getting into arguments with more people than ever before, usually with strangers. From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thoug…

It's the US society that is so polarized. Global society is just in a situation where it has to deal with the fallout of that.
Post reply on HN