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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#711

Post by hotpotamus »

ambrozk wrote: post #581
ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, R…

I've never seen a pulpit or a town square in the city I live in. Have you?

Re: Heresy

#712

Post by exolymph »

otterley wrote: post #700
sillysaurusx wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s tempting to point out a few heresies. My hunch is that you’d err on the side of feeling uncomfortable. “Ignorant” and “insensitive” are telltale signs of orthodoxy, the way that clouds are telltale signs of a thunderstorm. I had a relationship with a much older woman when I was younger. It was long distance, and after a few years we met up for a wonderful trip down a river. It was one of the best memories of my…

> “Ignorant” and “insensitive” are telltale signs of orthodoxy Some would call them telltale signs of knowledge, wisdom, and a moral framework that places great weight on respect for others, when used in a corrective context.

Indeed, some would. Would you? Note that you reflexively express your position by reference to a putative consensus.

Re: Heresy

#713

Post by mise_en_place »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #697
atoav wrote: post #640

> For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. I tried to recall the few times I called someone out on being sexist, racist or whatever, and it was never a discourse or a discussion: the majority were tasteless jokes in the presence of someone would have been affected (e.g. tasteless joke about how all women are $X in the presence of a wom…

It’s tempting to point out a few heresies. My hunch is that you’d err on the side of feeling uncomfortable. “Ignorant” and “insensitive” are telltale signs of orthodoxy, the way that clouds are telltale signs of a thunderstorm. I had a relationship with a much older woman when I was younger. It was long distance, and after a few years we met up for a wonderful trip down a river. It was one of the best memories of my…

> Swap the genders in the above story, and it’d be a firestorm. Everyone would gleefully watch you burn.

It could still be a net positive for the teenager, even though it was an extremely inappropriate/problematic relationship.

Re: Heresy

#714

Post by incomingpain »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

Obama is a very smart dude. 2 years ago he saw it building and he misidentified this as activism.

John Mcwhorter I believe better identified this as a religion: https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/2021/11/2/2272...

As an atheist you see the same pattern often. Here's a hour long video of sam harris and john talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPHUu9sAGKo&t=2s

This new religion has the christians, muslims, atheists, and others all worked up.

It's unusual for a new global religion to form, nothing there to really prevent it. The big difference this time is they got really big while remaining undercover.

I guess my prediction as well. You could become a preacher for this new religion, set for life to serve. Just need to figure out how to. If you do try this, make sure you are following the golden rule every day. Make sure you're 100% positivity. Try to merge religions, I'm pretty sure 'coexist' is a big part of this.

Re: Heresy

#716

Post by alanlammiman »

kemayo wrote: post #395
afc wrote: post #31

> The clearest evidence of this [that some x-ist statements may be true] is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. The argument doesn't support it's conclusion: it _could_ be that all potentially x-ist statements are false, but they are on…

The particularly uncharitable reading of that quote that jumped to my mind when I read it is "but why can't I, a white guy, say the n-word?" But this probably isn't what Graham actually had in mind. I think Graham is trying to operate in some idealized plane of pure logical statements where you can speak truthful axioms and reason from them. He misses that in the real world statements have a context, are part of an o…

This was also the example that came to my mind. It is perhaps one of the most iconic examples, and as such, absent a concrete example or further clarification, I don't see why you shouldn't assume that this is representative of what the author had in mind.

Re: Heresy

#717

Post by alanlammiman »

mjburgess wrote: post #322
afc wrote: post #31

> The clearest evidence of this [that some x-ist statements may be true] is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. The argument doesn't support it's conclusion: it _could_ be that all potentially x-ist statements are false, but they are on…

It's a "truth vs. order" debate. PG is in highly stable environments where order isnt an issue, so he is more concerned about truth. Generally, when "x-isms" are accused, the issue is the break down of social order in the environment in which the accusations are made. It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace. Most spaces aren't for discuss…

thank you, that seems to be a very useful framework to keep in mind

Re: Heresy

#718

Post by voakbasda »

infiniteL0Op wrote: post #625
amalcon wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to point out the Sedition Act of 1918 here. About 100 years ago, a law that literally made it a crime to criticize the government was not only enacted, but upheld by the courts. Can you even imagine that today? What people are finally noticing now is that non-government entities can also have negative impacts on free speech. They're not noticing because it just started -- e.g. lots of folks lost their jobs for…

Ask Thai citizens if they can imagine that. Or Russians. In democracies, society has moved a bit into a direction where many harmless things said will trigger an upset in some very uptight people. It's enforced socially rather than by the government. Back when you could not say things openly against governments, at least you could speak your mind on anything else. Today, you can say whatever you want against the gove…

Freedom of speech is a principle that transcends political policies. In theory, it is a clear and unambiguous concept; in practice, governments ruin it with nearly arbitrary rules that run counter to that fundamental principle.

Re: Heresy

#719

Post by freebuju »

atoav wrote: post #640

> For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. I tried to recall the few times I called someone out on being sexist, racist or whatever, and it was never a discourse or a discussion: the majority were tasteless jokes in the presence of someone would have been affected (e.g. tasteless joke about how all women are $X in the presence of a wom…

It may be too late to have the kind of conversations you are envisioning with young people raised in this generation. They have conjured up big words and terms that don't even mean anything in the practical sense and will easily take offense with anything or anyone about whatever values they strongly identify with.

This is the generation that needs (and sometimes demands that) their spaces online be protected from any ideas that are divergent to those they subscribe to.

Re: Heresy

#720

Post by ModernMech »

ambrozk wrote: post #581
ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, R…

> If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker is entitled to that pulpit.

Okay but what about when I want to use the pulpit? By your logic, if you're using the pulpit you are restricting my speech, because I can't exercise my speech while you're exercising yours. And by that token, if everyone in the town square wanted to shout you down and drown you out while you were at the pulpit, you can't really complain on the basis of free speech, right? Because any restrictions on their shouting would encroach on their free speech rights.

Apparently this is what we call "cancel culture", and the reason we're still talking about it today is that people complaining about it have no coherent ideas on how to fix it without also trampling all over the very free speech principles they are decrying have been violated.

This knot people have tied themselves into is fascinating.

Post reply on HN