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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#531

Post by NoraCodes »

rayiner wrote: post #524
jacobolus wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham grew up in a time when rich middle-aged white men with no relevant experience or credential could spout off about whatever topic they wanted, including pseudo-intellectual racism/misogyny, and everyone would be forced to listen to their nonsense unable to respond with more than an eye-roll for fear of reprisals. (For that matter, when Graham grew up those powerful white dudes could beat people up, sexuall…

Quoted post unavailable.

How's that? The point being made here is that he is used to people in his position in society having a certain freedom from criticism, and therefore sees any vulnerability to criticism as a loss of freedom. This is an equally valid point whether the commenter is white or black, man or woman, old or young.

Re: Heresy

#532

Post by ss108 »

tristor wrote: post #446
ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

“Deplatforming” is anti-freedom. It violates the free speech of the speaker, it violates freedom of assembly for the listeners, and it violates freedom of association for all of the parties involved. Showing up to shout someone down who had people voluntarily show up to hear them speak because you feel like you are empowered to unilaterally decide and enforce through aggression who is “allowed” to speak in your city…

In making this argument, you should clarify that you think it's important to not limit "freedom of speech" to its legal definition. Currently, you only make an allusion to that distinction.

To fully make your argument, you need to convince people that the overall philosophical point of "free speech" is worth societal value even beyond that which we have accorded it via law (assuming you're in the US).

Coming from someone who doesn't agree with you, but who doesn't agree with your opponents either.

Re: Heresy

#533

Post by rdiddly »

NoraCodes wrote: post #521
twofornone wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now, wait a second - either it's bad that people get fired for expressing opinions, as Graham states in the essay, or it's not and people _should_ get fired for expressing opinions that you don't like. I don't think you can have it both ways. It's not even as if there's a conflict of interest here, as in the case of public officials being banned from certain kinds of political speech; these teachers are not hurting a…

According to the Florida bill, it's when the students are 3rd grade or lower. The bifurcation point between "OK to talk about" and "not OK to talk about" is between 3rd & 4th grade.

Re: Heresy

#534

Post by wskinner »

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…

> 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

If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these groups has been so total and swift that it can be hard to to put things in perspective and imagine what life was like in the relatively recent past.

Re: Heresy

#535

Post by zozbot234 »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #529
zozbot234 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

James Damore was a lowly software engineer and that did not save him from being canceled by the mob and losing his job. All the more outrageous because his working paper was an honest and forthright - and broadly accurate - response to an express request for feedback about how to improve working conditions. Shades of "let a thousand flowers bloom".

Is "honest and forthright" really the only qualification for working at Google? What about being professional? Meaning... getting your work done in a way that you're not making other people hate you? I can totally imagine a workplace where "It's not your problem if other people hate you" is the norm. And I'm happy for people who find an employer like that and enjoy that. But does every workplace need to be like that?…

> Meaning... getting your work done in a way that you're not making other people hate you?

"Making other people hate you"? Blaming a victim of vicious abuse for what his abusers were doing is very much not cool.

Re: Heresy

#536

Post by dragonwriter »

> I want this essay to work in the future, not just now. And unfortunately it probably will

It doesn't work now; it might work better in the future when the current claims (which are right-wing propaganda) are irrelevant, and only the vague, not particularly actionable, generalities.

> Back in the day (and still, in some places) the punishment for heresy was death

It still is. Did you miss 1/6 and the “hang Mike Pence“ chants? Did you miss the Pizzagate lies and the violence they instigated? Did you miss the current “groomer“ propaganda directed at the LGBTQ+ community and allies from the right for merely existing openly, including the Disney “bring ammo“ shirts being marketed? (All of which—at least, promotion of the ideas, if not the actual execution of the violence—is not limited to the fringes of the right, but mainstream major party political and media figures.

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left

There can't be a reason for a thing that isn't true. Falsely portraying the intolerance as primarily a left-wing phenomenon is the central element of the persecution propaganda that is the common underlying foundation of all of the right-wing violent intolerance efforts going on; while PG is pretending to be above the fray and neutrally negative on the left only because of the dynamics of current condition, he is actively participating in the things he is criticizing by knowingly validating the false premises underlying the most violent, dangerous anti-“heresy” movements.

> There are many on the far left who believe strongly in the reintegration of felons (as I do myself), and yet seem to feel that anyone guilty of certain heresies should never work again.

“Many...seem“ is pretty weaselly, but I (and I bet I have more experience with the far left than PG, despite not being a far leftist) know of no one on the far left who believes in reintegration of felons for whom there is reason, at least negative, to believe are reformed that does not believe that for non-criminal moral wrongdoers.

Those who have neither reformed nor even acknowledged their acts or the wrongness of them are...not the same.

Re: Heresy

#537

Post by twofornone »

NoraCodes wrote: post #521
twofornone wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now, wait a second - either it's bad that people get fired for expressing opinions, as Graham states in the essay, or it's not and people _should_ get fired for expressing opinions that you don't like. I don't think you can have it both ways. It's not even as if there's a conflict of interest here, as in the case of public officials being banned from certain kinds of political speech; these teachers are not hurting a…

> either it's bad that people get fired for expressing opinions

They're not merely "expressing opinions", they're teaching children "facts" of disputed veracity and appropriateness.

>these teachers are not hurting anyone or disrupting any civil processes

That's the crux of the whole debate, isn't it? By teaching these topics inappropriately or inappropriately early, they are potentially harming children, if, say, transgenderism is a social contagion.

Re: Heresy

#538

Post by NoraCodes »

wskinner wrote: post #534
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…

> 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 If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these…

> I doubt you could find a woman, disable person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America.

That's not what I meant and, I think, not what I said. I did not say that we _had_ rolled back those rights, but that we were in the _process_ of doing so. Rather than moving in the direction of liberation for these groups, we are moving in the opposite direction, at least in some places, and more relevantly for this discussion, that politics of oppression is normative in the right-wing party here. Graham's essay is explicitly aimed at the left, yet effectively elucidates the precise tactics and goals of the right.

Re: Heresy

#539

Post by rayiner »

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…

> reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right.

Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders.

Attempting to argue that the battles being fought today—fighting laws regulating private conduct in bedrooms versus teaching third graders about sexuality—is disingenuous. So is overlooking that the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester.

> The best way to make sure people are not fired for speech is not to make it unacceptable for minorities to argue vehemently with their oppressors;

Oh please. Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement. Elizabeth Warren’s voters in the Democratic Primary were about as white as Donald Trump’s (85%).

Re: Heresy

#540

Post by [deleted] »

wskinner wrote: post #534
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…

> 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 If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN