Heresy

The values assumed by the author of this essay are so far removed from my own that it would be useless to attempt to engage it on its own terms in this forum, but I do find this piece interesting from the perspective of an anthropological study of language. Graham's criteria for heresy are :

"(1) that it takes priority over the question of truth or falsity, and (2) that it outweighs everything else the speaker has done."

This obviously has nothing to do with the classical conception of heresy most pronounced in the Christian tradition, which is well-defined and well-documented. Anyone with intellectual honesty can discover on their own that "heresy" simply denotes teaching that is markedly false in virtue of being contrary to dogmatic teaching, almost the opposite of what is implied in point (1).

Based on many of the underlying assumptions in this piece, I think it would be entirely fair to describe Graham as some kind of liberal. This is evidently something he would bemoan me doing (see: the bit about "x-ism" in discourse), but the ideas expressed, the value-judgments made, and the characterizations of medieval Europe made in this piece are by no means original or historically-unprecedented.

The liberal or perhaps whiggish historiography (a conception of history, in this case, in terms of the degree of negative liberty allotted to individuals not only by the state but the body politic as a whole) implicit in this piece appears at least prima facie to lead to its author's either mistaken characterization or perhaps purposeful recharacterization of the notion of "heresy". Liberalism ad absurdem would, in performance, consider a classical conception of "heresy" nonsensical, because it assumes the truthhood of a dogmatic teaching which isn't immediately obvious to everyone. However there is something that, at least if pushed on it enough, no one will deny without performative contradiction, and that is that certain things are good and true, and others not. No systematic thought can be non-dogmatic, because the dogmatic rejection of dogmas is a dogma (it is, in truth, only the dogmatic rejection of dogmas existing in some form on the present world-stage). Of course, the dogmas of the varieties of liberalism are, more or less, incompatible with orthodox Christianity, which popularized the term "heraese" in the Latin West, and this accounts for the different notion of "heresy", which appears to me now as a corpse of a term, once mostly denoting false teaching, now emphasizing the persecutory aspect of espousing teaching contrary to certain dogmas. Similarly, "paganus" once referred to a rural, bucolic person in the Roman Empire, and through pejorative use by Christians simply began to denote those who practiced the religion common among the rural Romans. Now, the so-called "neopagan" movement self-identify as such, appropriating the term entirely. I have also witnessed the phenomenon of some "far-right" people I know crying about being labeled "fascists" because they were not "fascists" as defined in the doctrinal document ghost-authored by Gentile, but then years later willingly adopted the term, accepting that the nuanced differences between their worldview and the IFP's were negligible from the perspective of people who use the term "fascist" pejoratively. I think a similar thing is going on here with the use of "heresy". The author clearly believes that the dominant thought-forms during the middle ages are "antiquated" (his word), and because the differences between traditions with different declared dogmas probably appear to him negligible from the perspective of his values and historiography, the only thing the word "heresy" signals to him is the mere existence of socially-imposed consequences for expressing this or that belief.

Quite fascinating how we, as a species, use language.

Yes, I think pg gets off on the wrong foot here---essentially saying that if something's true, it can't be x-ist---and proceeds in a circle. As you point out, many statements made with racist intent are at least partially true. This should also explain to Graham why whether something is x-ist can depend on who's saying it (and therefore what their intent is likely to be), while something that is true is presumably universal to the speaker: x-ism and truth are orthogonal dimensions.

"when someone calls a statement 'x-ist,' they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion."

This thesis is the real "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I can respect that it applies truthfully to many would-be SJWs, and the labels are indeed used to end conversations. However, meaningfully calling something racist, sexist, etc. is a start of a process, not an end. This meaningful discussion (and, much more frequently, reflection) is too often precluded when one party is too defensive to look honestly, openly, and beyond themselves, at their own biases.

Too bad nobody respects teachers in the United States.

There's a reason the conventionalists don't want real education for their children and zero involvement of society in their nuclear family: control. They then frame it as some libertarian ideal.

Until a public school teacher can say no to a student, and their parents, nobody will learn the foundations of complex thought in the classroom. That is by design.

This was a very interesting read, but I think there are some base assumptions left unanalyzed.

In my opinion, the reason why "cancel culture", or heresy as the author calls it, is so dangerous is because it legitimizes A) dehumanization, B) the idea that any evolutionary strategy is off the table, and C) the idea that you are not obligated to explain yourself if you want people to listen and take you seriously.

A) Society is regressing to the point where the mere utterance of a word or phrase can be deemed so offensive that it justifies murder, permanent injury and/or sexual violation being perpetrated against the speaker. This is a level of barbarism most would associate some distant dark age or the fauna of an unexplored jungle, yet here it is.

B) By evolutionary strategy, I am referring to the knowledge, experience and skill we apply individually and collectively for the purpose of survival, and the decision making processes we engage in along the way. People do not have to believe what you believe. They don't have to pray to what you pray to, or eat what you eat, or wear what you wear, or speak your language. And that's perfectly okay as long they aren't stepping your toes, and vice versa. There are many paths that can be taken to attain fitness and fulfillment. Monocultures suck, and stifled speech breeds them like there's no tomorrow.

C) A lack of transparency deprives us of the chains of logic used to reach a given conclusion, whether it's true or not. Tying this back into point B, in nature there is generally more than one right way to do something, yet the ugly monoculture that has come out of American social media and acadamia would seem to disagree. There is an all-pervasive "my way or the highway" attitude. When everyone is fearful and secretive it creates a chilling effect in every strata of society. It doesn't matter if you're a burger flipper or an electrical engineer. In all environments poisoned by this culture of hosility it becomes impossible to build enough trust to get the work done, let alone innovate or do it efficiently.

Human beings are smart enough to choose our own whetstones and sharpen ourselves in a controlled manner that leads to a lot less pain, suffering and death. But apparently not smart enough to overcome misplaced pride and petty tribalism. In my opinion this is the great filter. Not aliens, not an energy crisis, not space travel. Just learning to work well with others is going to be the hardest thing in the universe.