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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#871

Post by musicale »

tptacek wrote: post #774
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…

> When he writes about Lisp, or (for the most part) about startups, or about being a dad, he seems happy and well-adjusted

I could imagine that even unhappy or poorly-adjusted people might sometimes have worthwhile things to say.

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

What would be the main benefit from doing so?

Re: Heresy

#872

Post by tshaddox »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #868
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.

Unfortunately any argument of that form can be rejected immediately on epistemological grounds. Take for instance the argument “we can’t say certain words any more because speaking them will summon an ogre who will immediately kill and eat the speaker…and I can’t give any evidence of this occurring, or give an example of any of these words for obvious reasons.”

Re: Heresy

#873

Post by BobbyJo »

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 don't see it as anything other than a useful label in his writing personally. If you want to talk about something, you need a name for it, and I don't think there is one more apt yet bland one can ascribe to a group of people who take an arbitrary set of conventions to an agressive extreme.

Re: Heresy

#874

Post by [deleted] »

slibhb wrote: post #866
sanderjd wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#875

Post by tomnipotent »

seaourfreed wrote: post #785
choppaface wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID has changed a lot because it brought into public debate how to evaluate deeply held beliefs about predicting the future. The discussion is high-strung because it covers a life-or-death topic, and it’s so diverse (e.g. science vs region vs conspiracy vs liberty etc) that it forced the quantization of opinions. Once you swap an opinion for a symbol, game theory takes over the conversation. What could help solve t…

Paul posted this because people are getting fired from their jobs now (directly or indirectly). See his words: "Nowadays, in civilized countries, heretics only get fired in the metaphorical sense, by losing their jobs. ... You could have spent the last ten years saving children's lives, but if you express certain opinions, you're automatically fired." People on the political right have moderate discussions and they a…

The political left using this "heretic" tactic is relatively new, and if it's effective it's because the political right honed it for decades against women, LGBT, foreigners, non-Christians, and any other group they didn't want buying property next to them.

Re: Heresy

#876

Post by BobbyJo »

rectang wrote: post #815
tomcam wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. Where do you get that from the original post? I am not seeing it.

People Graham agrees with who are encouraged to weaponize their victimization: those supposedly accused of "heresy" for their "x-ist" utterances. People Graham disagrees with who are denied: those who speak out about "x-ist" utterances, whom he characterizes as "heretic hunters".

I think it's the part where a promotion of weaponization is claimed. I'm not seeing that either.

Is it weaponization of victimhood to disagree, and warn others of the hallmarks of a problematic position?

I don't think anyone was confused about who the 'us' and 'them' are. Every group casts a shadow, so it's hard to talk about a 'they' without there being an 'us'.

Re: Heresy

#877

Post by asdf234123 »

exolymph wrote: post #709
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…

Another fraught heresy, which I'm about to commit, is that men and women are intrinsically different (in aggregate, on average, blah blah blah) and thus if you swap the genders in your story, it is a genuinely different story. Granted, I can't say that I have positive regard for older women who sleep with teenagers, though I'm glad you didn't garner any trauma from it, but my personal experiences lead me to have a ve…

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#878

Post by skissane »

Beltalowda wrote: post #445
ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Another thing that muddies the discussion is the confusion between the legal protection of free speech and the ethical value of free speech. "Free speech" does not equal "freedom from being criticized" or "right to an audience". Me making fun of your argument or calling your argument stupid and x-ist is me exercising my free speech just as much as you are exercising yours in making you argument in the first place. Bu…

> A lot of times what people are really talking of when they express concerns about "free speech" is the ethical value. This is frequently countered with an argument about the legal protection, but that's kind of missing the point IMHO.

That's true, but also I think people sometimes have an overly narrow focus on one single aspect of legal protection - especially, in the US context, the First Amendment. While 1A is the most crucial way in which the US legal system seeks to support that ethical value, there are other ways – something which violates the ethical value of free speech may not violate 1A, yet may violate other legal provisions.

To give just one example – California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 outlaws political discrimination in employment in the State of California. This can provide added protection to the ethical value of free speech compared to 1A. 1A does not prevent private employers from firing employees for publicly expressing particular political views – at least in some cases, 1101&1102 will. And a few other states have similar legal provisions, and there is always the chance that more states could adopt laws like this – getting state laws amended is far easier than amending the federal constitution, or putting in place a Supreme Court bench which will interpret it a certain way.

Re: Heresy

#879

Post by at_a_remove »

tptacek wrote: post #774
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…

Those feminists are so angry when they write about feminism. They seem happier when they write about other topics. Clearly, then, we know what to advise them to write about.

You see how that works?

Re: Heresy

#880

Post by jounker »

Avshalom wrote: post #516

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat... just sayin'. maybe 1985 sucked a lot for a lot of people that weren't paul graham.

Yup. Paul Graham doesn’t seem to have a very accurate memory of historical conditions.
Post reply on HN