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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#771

Post by giraffe_lady »

paisawalla wrote: post #703
giraffe_lady wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

Not even 500px away from here, there's this exchange from you, contradicting your clever tweet: > Can [ignoring ideas I don't like] get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law? > If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. [Context: "We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others."]

What's the contradiction here I don't see it?

Re: Heresy

#772

Post by bendbro »

CJefferson wrote: post #745
bendbro wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I said: 1. "Fuck Jesus, fuck America, kill all men." 2. "Fuck BLM, fuck diversity." Which one do you think would get me cancelled? Conservatives have comically little social power. Further, you can basically say anything you want around them, while conversations with the average liberal are a careful affair. Perhaps though I am blind. Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations? The defin…

The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble". Fox is comfortably the most popular cable news network in America -- and that lends it a lot of social power among people who get most of their news from cable. They don't care what idiots on Twitter are saying, except as filtered through the news they consume. I talk to conservatives who get furious at the s…

> I talk to conservatives who get furious at the suggestion that Joe Biden isn't a pedophile, or trans-women are women and not also pedophiles

Does their reaction have any odds of extending beyond your discussion with them into your friendship with them, other relationships, your job, or your public reputation?

> The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble"

It definitely could be my bubble. A lot of the strength behind my opinion formed while living in Seattle and mingling with the locals.

An anecdote: I once was at a friends birthday, and was seated next to a mutual friend I'd had for a year. She asked if I had been to the women's march, and I said "sorry no, I didn't have the time." She said "everybody has the time" and I said "I feel uncomfortable at marches." She said that's not a reason. I said "Okay, the real reason was I didn't have the hat." After that we were no longer friends.

Interacting with the left in the southwest has been a significantly better experience.

Re: Heresy

#773

Post by ramraj07 »

skellington wrote: post #430
ramraj07 wrote: post #238

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

??? What does that even mean?

Re: Heresy

#774

Post by tptacek »

keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

Well put. I don't think this is new for him; there's always been a vein in his writing of someone scarred, late into life, by bad experiences in high school. Maybe it's not deliberate, but it is a vibe he sometimes manages to give off.

When he writes about Lisp, or (for the most part) about startups, or about being a dad, he seems happy and well-adjusted (I'm looking for a better term but let's roll with that). When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story.

He should take a break from this stuff and write about teaching his kids Lisp.

Re: Heresy

#775

Post by knorker »

telchior wrote: post #666
Biologist123 wrote: post #220

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…

Trying to give it the article a more positive reading: at least for myself, I can imagine several opinions I could express in the United States which would count as "heresy". I'd imagine that if those opinions were said out loud (whether or not I really believed them) my employers would fire me, friends would unfriend me, etc. But, I can't really think of any supporting real-world stories where that reaction wouldn't…

Neither was fired for work performance. I think anything else is a distracting justification, not a reason.

James Damore was fired by a mob who boldly proclaimed "I didn't read his manifesto. I didn't have to".

None of these firings were for honest reasons, but all just to appease the mob. A mob who at least in the last case didn't bother to even find out what he said.

There are many more examples. I could list them on and on, but I'm surprised you've only heard of the two.

There was the lady who appeared to scream in a cemetery

If those two are truly the only ones you can think of then I'd recommend you google this a bit better, and to read "So you've been publicly shamed".

Hell, a year ago you'd be kicked off the internet (social media platforms) as a racist (wat?) for saying the lab leak theory was plausible.

And of course then there's the chilling effect.

Re: Heresy

#776

Post by honkdaddy »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #651
randomtwiddler wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a false equivalency. The majority of the personalized destruction, cancelling, firing, etc, comes from one side.

How about bills restricting voting access to people of color, or the ability to say the word “gay”? Those don’t qualify as material consequences for violating conventions/ideology? You have a one sided view.

Which bills restrict voting access for people of color?

Re: Heresy

#777

Post by foobarian »

keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

Honestly it reads a lot like something one would write who had lousy childhood/schooling experiences. I say that because I had one, and recognize a lot of the points as things I idly fantasize about in a "revenge of the nerds" rubric.

Re: Heresy

#778

Post by langsoul-com »

I wonder if people are becoming less forgiving to others. That is the concept of redemption doesn't exist for everyone.

Ie, is Harvey Weinstein redeemable? What if he saved 1,000 others from sexual abuse, to redeem his sins, in the next year. Can his past sons be forgiven?

Re: Heresy

#779

Post by josephcsible »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #651
randomtwiddler wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a false equivalency. The majority of the personalized destruction, cancelling, firing, etc, comes from one side.

How about bills restricting voting access to people of color, or the ability to say the word “gay”? Those don’t qualify as material consequences for violating conventions/ideology? You have a one sided view.

> bills restricting voting access to people of color

I'm not aware of any such bill. What's its name? And why is it not dead on arrival due to the Equal Protection Clause?

Re: Heresy

#780

Post by FerociousTimes »

keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

I didn't pick up on any "misanthropic" undertones in his essay but I echo your sentiment regarding the labels not for the same moralistic reasons you cited but for their weak construction; I'd have opted for "collectivist vs individualist" instead of "conventional vs independent" and "militant vs casual" instead of "aggressive vs passive" but the premise of his thesis remains intact which is that we need to counter the pervasive influence of these elements not to ruin the public discourse for all of us.
Post reply on HN