671–680 of 1001 posts
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.
This is an essay about what is largely a social media phenomenon. You can avoid the whole thing by just not participating. Seems like a waste of energy to even discuss vs just realizing that arguing publicly on a global scale is not a good use of your limited time on Earth.
Except when people don't participate they get nothing out of the exchange and there's no discussion or progress
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article isn’t flawed; it perfectly shows PGs evolving right leaning viewpoints. I used to understand where he came from when he originally started to argue about women in tech, but the new things he says, can’t stay with them anymore. You’re trying to divide two types of heresies because you don’t want to acknowledge the truth, there’s no two types just a sliding scale of offensiveness. You want there to be reper…
> There should be no repercussions as long as you state facts. I and I suppose many on the left would say there should be. So you're saying that there are factually correct statements that nobody should be able to utter without facing repercussions? Can you offer an example?
Useful question: do you belong to any democratically run organization, defined as one where the members can fire the leadership?
This is an essay about what is largely a social media phenomenon. You can avoid the whole thing by just not participating. Seems like a waste of energy to even discuss vs just realizing that arguing publicly on a global scale is not a good use of your limited time on Earth.
> You can avoid the whole thing by just not participating. Except when people don't participate they get nothing out of the exchange and there's no discussion or progress
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article isn’t flawed; it perfectly shows PGs evolving right leaning viewpoints. I used to understand where he came from when he originally started to argue about women in tech, but the new things he says, can’t stay with them anymore. You’re trying to divide two types of heresies because you don’t want to acknowledge the truth, there’s no two types just a sliding scale of offensiveness. You want there to be reper…
> There should be no repercussions as long as you state facts. I and I suppose many on the left would say there should be. So you're saying that there are factually correct statements that nobody should be able to utter without facing repercussions? Can you offer an example?
There are infinite true statements. We have to carefully pick the most useful and applicable truths to say in any given situation.
That's what wisdom and maturity are. Understanding a situation and choosing a good course of action. Including the truths we choose as the primary descriptors of the situation.
In the 90s and 2000s it would be “heresy” to be a gay or transgendered person. I remember sadly how people in hushed tones would talk about coworkers. There was a bro-y norm to engineering culture that you didn’t defy very easily. I'm a bit surprised how easily people forget these things.
This essay was somewhat high on opinion, somewhat low on evidence. Paul Graham tweets a lot about this issue, and cancel culture is something he is apparently very sensitive too. It makes me wonder what happened - as given his lack of evidence - it appears to be an emotional reaction rather than a logical one. As an aside, most examples of people being fired for expressing opinions seem to come from academia. I’ve wo…
> This essay was somewhat high on opinion, somewhat low on evidence That's putting it mildly. It's littered with straw men and other logical fallacies. He asserts, without any proof (because it's a faulty generalization that can't be proven), 'when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion'. He then wastes a bunch of time explaining the implications of hi…
Did I read this right?
Let's stipulate that group A has statistically more X than group B. This is the truth, measurably.
If we state this fact on public television, but omit, overlook or belittle the (also stipulated) fact, that this is due to unfair advantage Y (which then accelerates development that furthers the unfair advantage of group A) that's X-ism.
The devil is in the cherry picking and context. The outcome might not even be intended. Or it might be. The crux is: Saying "that's not what I meant" is just as easy as saying "that's what you meant" (or "that's sexist") and neither is a sign of sincerity.