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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#861

Post by odonnellryan »

ByteJockey wrote: post #203
yojo wrote: post #67

Woo boy. Generally liked the concept for the essay, but this piece jumps out as problematic (or just poorly written): > The clearest evidence of this 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. Really? He can’t think of a statement that is r…

> Really? He can’t think of a statement that is racist when a white person says it and not a black person? He can't think of a statement that is false when a white person says it and true when a black person says it (or vice versa).

"I am black?"

Re: Heresy

#862

Post by [deleted] »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #243

Great essay as always, however the deliberate withholding of examples is irritating me. I'm not looking for witches to burn, but names or examples of "grumpy, censorious people in a group — the ones who are always first to complain when something violates the current rules of propriety." would be helpful to identify the described mentality.

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#863

Post by [deleted] »

Biologist123 wrote: post #678
sicromoft wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I do tend to read his essays when I see them circulating and I must confess that I find them fascinating. I’ve wondered if Graham himself doesn’t entirely understand why he’s been so successful or what he’s achieved in creating - and indeed whether he’s aware of the deficit. When future historians of our increasingly interesting and shocking epoch are trying to work out what happened, I feel Graham’s essays will prov…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#866

Post by slibhb »

sanderjd wrote: post #856
slibhb wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just as disqualifying as the x-isms from the left, if you care about staying in the good graces of convention on the right The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy . Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. At this point, it's hard for me to know how to respond to people who remain skeptical of the th…

> The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. Potayto potahto. I was talking about the same thing that the article called "heresy". My claim isn't that shunning and social pressure doesn't exist or isn't a problem. I'm just a bit skeptical that it's a lot worse now than…

The essay specifically says it's not worse than in the past. No one's being burned at stake for example. And by the way, that's one reason I continue to believe in moral progress.

The essay does claim things are worse than 10 years ago. But 70 years ago? Things are better now than during McCarthyism.

> I don't even think it's really a thing with a political valence, I think it's just a human thing.

It's definitely a human thing. However, like I said, if you deny the political valence that currently exists, you're either not a clear-eyed observer of the present or you're part of it. And of course no one is saying "in 2022, the right never cancels anyone" just that present day punishments for heresy in the US are clearly politically-valenced.

Re: Heresy

#867

Post by PuppyTailWags »

amalcon wrote: post #843
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…

> Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations? Colin Kaepernick is the most obvious.

Isn't a teacher being fired for being associated with the LGBTQ club at the highschool she teaches at? In Texas I think, after administrators started banning rainbow flags and stuff.

Re: Heresy

#868

Post by invalidOrTaken »

tshaddox wrote: post #334

I wish he would just give examples or at least speak slightly more plainly about his complaint. I would understand his complaint more (and be able to decide whether I agree with him, although I’m fairly sure I don’t) if he would just say something very plainly like “I liked it better in 1985 when you could say X and have zero risk of losing your job.”

He can't do this because of the topic of the essay. If he could, it wouldn't need to be written.

Re: Heresy

#869

Post by the_optimist »

odonnellryan wrote: post #555

I know this is going to sound insane, but what is the obsession with truth? Things can be true and harmful. People should be judged for saying harmful things.

Once you start deviating from truth, you enable a wide range of extremely horrifically bad things. Things you have not witnessed, but humanity has. Do not do this. "Here be dragons," for the true idiots who don't bother understanding this.

Re: Heresy

#870

Post by rayiner »

rectang wrote: post #858
rayiner wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The immune response example is instructive, but supports Graham's position, not yours. Immune responses often are destructive--but we've evolved to have them anyway because the consequences are potentially far worse. There's some really important principles of our society--not just free speech, but meritocracy, color blindness, etc.--that are under attack right now by a novel ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…

I'd never heard of this "Successor Ideology" before today. Turns out it's a straw man crafted by its originator, Wesley Yang, for the sake of tearing down: he opposes it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Yang > Yang coined the term "successor ideology" in 2019 to describe an emerging ideology among left-wing movements in the United States centered around identity politics. Yang opposes this ideology and believes…

It’s like “trickle down economics.” It’s a phrase coined by its opponents to describe a real ideological trend. Obviously the people advancing that collection of ideas and policies don’t embrace the label and would describe their views differently. That doesn’t mean the label doesn’t describe a real thing. See also: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tel... (“Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand”)

Like there are lots of people demanding to end the SAT because it’s racist against “Latinx.” What do we call those people?

Post reply on HN