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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#581

Post by ambrozk »

ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker *is* entitled to that pulpit. This is the essence of free speech, and always has been. The 1st amendment is very explicit about this: citizens have a right to assemble *in public* and air their opinions *publicly.* Cordoning off opinions and declaring them unfit for certain public squares is a classic form of censorship. Communists, Republicans, the KKK, NAMBLA, the NRA, GLAAD, Gay Geeks for Bernie and the ASPCA all have the right to march on the National Mall.

Re: Heresy

#582

Post by moolcool »

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'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 politics of heresy emerging from the right

Good point! The "problem" is often framed that society is full of adult-babies who can't be disagreed with without dire consequence. But is it at all possible that it's just the case that in recent years people have just felt more empowered to tout anti-social ideas which are worthy of scorn in the first place? There's quite a bit of evidence for the latter (January 6, Charlottesville, Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers).

Re: Heresy

#583

Post by lukifer »

Beltalowda wrote: post #414
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Maus case provides an interesting contrast: while I agree the reaction was somewhat disproportionate, a dissenting view was still permissible within the "social Overton window". You might get looked at askance for saying "I don't think Maus is appropriate for schools", but you'd be unlikely to be ostracized or fired. The same can't be said for some other expressions of heterodoxy/heresy, past or present.

Re: Heresy

#584

Post by RichardHeart »

Mr. Graham writes an essay supporting free speech. Thus the comments here, ironically, attack his speech, with tons of words found no where in his essay at all. The comments here literally prove the spirit of his essay.

Re: Heresy

#585

Post by Eli_Beeblebrox »

muglug wrote: post #36

> Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth I disagree. The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either). By banning those sorts of statements you’re not banning the truth, you’re just quieting assholes.

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#586

Post by UncleMeat »

bloaf wrote: post #573
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…

> 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…

Academia has never been dispassionate. The very idea of an academic conference started because academics hated each other so much that they needed a mechanism for them to see each other as people.

Further, a marketplace of ideas is a marketplace. Marketplaces are not emotionless voids where consumers dispassionately select the product that will provide them with precisely the best utility-to-cost ratio. They are emotional places where concepts like marketing and signaling are extremely important. Similarly, we'd expect a "marketplace of ideas" to be an emotional place and for human emotion to be a consideration when adopting ideas.

Re: Heresy

#587

Post by ss108 »

skellington wrote: post #418
tlogan wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

? What "bizarre interpretations" did that person offer? Am I reading the wrong comment, or did you accidentally reply to the wrong one?

Re: Heresy

#588

Post by UncleMeat »

zozbot234 wrote: post #558
ryanobjc wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His paper was definitively broadly inaccurate. A number of dissections online have illustrated at how he grasps at evidence that doesn’t say what he claims it to say. He over emphasizes the nature of statistical evidence, and ignores the minimal strength of effect as well. Besides which this wasn’t a “all of a sudden I wrote a paper and then I got fired” - he had been posting similar ideas into internal forums and wa…

Most of these "dissections" online simply omit his references, which gives a very misleading impression of the actual paper. Strength of effect is always minimal in psych and social science: you aren't going to find any seven-sigma results. So this is a biased criticism as well.

Authors of papers he personally cited criticized his writeup as poor.

Re: Heresy

#589

Post by version_five »

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'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 politics of heresy emerging from the right

I see the former (and maybe the latter, I honestly don't pay too much attention), but my interpretation is that a major culprit for any reversals in rights is the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance (which we had essentially achieved) to ridiculous "you're actively protesting with us or your against us" proportions that have caused the pushback.

Just to add, in principle I'm against

> anti-"critical race theory" laws and "don't say gay" laws

even if they are mischaracterized to a large extent. But I see them as the latest escalation in response to provocation from the left. They were not written in a vacuum.

Re: Heresy

#590

Post by rayiner »

NoraCodes wrote: post #548
rayiner wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fou…

> how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1] > the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. [2] 1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi... 2: ht…

> More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1]

This is a complete misreading of that opinion. Note that both Thomas and Alito concurred in the denial of cert. They said nothing of overturning Obergefell, but criticized the process by which it was done—by judicial fiat rather than legislation. Specifically, this meant that the legislature had no ability to consider and address religious objections.

Thomas and Alito’s opinion not only didn’t call for Obergefell to be overturned, but are completely mainstream compared to other developed counties. The year after Obergefell, the EU Court of Human Rights ruled that the express right to marriage contained in the European Convention on Human Rights did not cover same sex marriage. EU countries all enacted same sex marriage through legislation—and they included various protections for religious liberty—exactly the process that Alito and Thomas said should have been followed. Switzerland only legalized it last year, and it’s still not legal in Italy.

> the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe)

I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN.

Meanwhile Colorado just legalized killing babies right up until birth.

Post reply on HN