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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#831

Post by [deleted] »

keithwhor wrote: post #819
tomcam wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. Would you mind giving me quotes from the post to back up these assertions?

Simply categorizing human beings as conventional vs unconventional and passive vs aggressive, and then establishing an enemy in one quadrant is an example. Unconventional people are the victims, aggressively conventional people are the others. I think the thing Paul really has a problem with is social brigading and mobs attacking people unfairly. Which is fine; but you can make that argument without painting yourself…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#832

Post by haihaibye »

softwaredoug wrote: post #454

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.

> people in hushed tones would talk about coworkers

If they were still co workers, it wasn't treated as a fireable offence like the modern heresies

Re: Heresy

#833

Post by galaxyLogic »

rendang wrote: post #652
tootie wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political correctness was an epithet invented by conservatives who opposed things like women's rights, gay rights etc. The fact that advocates can be mistaken doesn't overshadow how wrong the other side is to be unwilling to acknowledge injustice.

We live in a pluralistic society where there is a great deal of disagreement over the fundamental principles of ethics, justice and rights. This is not an easily soluble situation, it boils down to the is-ought problem. However it seems that today many want to pretend that these differences don't exist, e.g. a progressive talks to a conservative as if the latter agrees on fundamental presuppositions but only misappli…

Great point. Heretics vs. infidels

Re: Heresy

#834

Post by alfor »

tlogan wrote: post #271

Can somebody list “heresies” which we are not allowed to say but they are ok? I cannot find a single one. But maybe I’m missing something.

- US is one of the least racist country the world has ever seen

- Climate change is not as bad as show in the news

- Most womans prefer to work in somethings else than engineering

- Most womans will find more satisfaction in raising kids than a job

- A father and a mother is what is the best for kids

- Trump wasn’t worse president than Obama

- The press and big tech is 90% democrat thus they push the narrative they believe on other (some people call that deep state, other stolen election)

Re: Heresy

#835

Post by FerociousTimes »

keithwhor wrote: post #801
FerociousTimes wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Aha. Great observation; what you interpret as anti-collectivist / pro-individualist I interpret as misanthropic. Admittedly this is probably cultural on my part; growing up in a working class Canadian family bestows different social ideologies. It’s a complaint I have about Canadian culture (not individualistic enough ) but I do think a problem with American discourse is it can err so far on the side of individualism…

I know it's futile to persuade a Canadian not to apologize reflexively anytime they get the chance to but your pro-collectivist explanation is totally fine with me :)

Here's my counter backstory, I grew up and live in a very collectivist society and I'm a very individualist minded person by nature, and it's like hell on earth for me, and to spare you the sob story and to get straight to the point, when I come across pieces like the ones authored by PG in defense of individualism and critical of collectivism, it always hits home and I experience a momentary feeling of relief knowing I am not alone in all of this, and when I see how the militant collectivist crowd is wreaking havoc in the West and making people's life a living hell, it really upsets me and I feel helpless reminding me of my own personal circumstances, and that's why I have strong reactions regarding this issue, and why I feel that something must be done to counter this destructive force and stop it in its tracks.

PS: I don't view every collectivist movement negatively, that would be extremely absurd and I believe that some currents of collectivism can be very beneficial for society and the entire world but I'm still a staunch defender of individualism and will ever be.

Re: Heresy

#836

Post by csande17 »

tptacek wrote: post #799
zozbot234 wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story. Is there anyone at all who writes "happily" about cancel culture? Even SJW's themselves can only give an impression of being perpetually angry and frustrated; they try to present their inner frustration wrt. the world at large as some sort of zeal for superior justice and universal social liberation, but don't quite manage to…

It's not that his writing is unhappy. It's that when he writes about it, he seems like an unhappy person. I don't know if that's the case for "SJWs"; I mostly steer clear of the "cancel culture" discourse.

Is your core concern here the fact that when Paul Graham writes about things he likes, his posts have a positive tone, and when he writes about things he dislikes, his posts have a negative tone?

Re: Heresy

#838

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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…

He's a thinker.

Just not a deep one.

He addresses topics just enough to scratch the itch he wants to scratch without putting any meaningful thought into them, which is why his essays are so easy to discard. Sure, they work for like-minded people who want to drink from the tap of the successful businessman stereotype, but they're usually not useful whenever he strays from talking about business.

Re: Heresy

#839

Post by MisterBastahrd »

temp8964 wrote: post #746
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…

> lots of folks lost their jobs for vocally opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000's I am not aware of this history. Is there any data or document? What kind of jobs, private? governmental? academic?

Everyone crying about people being cancelled sure didn't have a lot of words to defend the Dixie Chicks when they were against the Iraq war.

Re: Heresy

#840

Post by chmod600 »

Beltalowda wrote: post #155

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would…

Interestingly, there were 3 justices that were around for both the flag burning case and Citizen's United (money-is-speech case): Scalia, Kennedy, and Stevens.

Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority (broad speech rights) in both cases and Stevens was in the minority (narrower speech rights) in both cases.

So, I guess (loosely speaking) if fire is speech, then money is speech too.

Post reply on HN