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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#981

Post by jimkleiber »

mosew wrote: post #975

"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 discussi…

The challenge I have when someone calls something racist or sexist, or even good or evil or beautiful or ugly, is that a person seems to be taking how they feel about a thing and labeling that thing as if everyone feels the same way with regards to that thing, which I think is rarely if ever true.

Which can lead to this:

Person 1: That thing is beautiful.

Person 2: No it's not beautiful.

Person 1: Yes, it is beautiful.

Person 2: No, it is not beautiful!

or slightly better, this:

Person 1: For me, that thing is beautiful.

Person 2: Well, for me, that thing is not beautiful.

Person 1: Why don't you find that thing beautiful??

Person 2: I just don't see it as beautiful.

or much better, this:

Person 1: I feel so much joy when I see that thing.

Person 2: I don't feel joy, I actually feel disgust.

Person 1: I'm confused, why do you feel disgust when you see that thing?

Person 2: It reminds me of this one thing that caused me a lot of pain before.

So while yes, I don't think labeling something as universally X necessarily ends the conversation, I think it can lead people to a binary debate about universals instead of open up the conversation for people to share their own experiences and more personal perspectives.

Re: Heresy

#982

Post by tomrod »

Skiiing wrote: post #930
tomrod wrote: post #351

I don't read too much of PG's recent work. Does he attack classism with the same vigor as he does the left?

It's telling that you interpret an attack on heresy as an attack on the left.

Nah, he clearly defined the rise in heresy to his perception that liberals instituted changes in academia in the 1980s.

Why do you feel it is "telling" to accurately and concretely identify something that the article was explicit about?

Re: Heresy

#983

Post by ineptech »

Skiiing wrote: post #927
ineptech wrote: post #549

> Up till about 1985 the window [of what you can say without being cancelled] had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased. I think that whether this is or true or not depends a lot on how you define your terms. If cancel culture only means "I expressed an unpopular opinion about gay rights on TV and the…

The article was about heresy which he defined as a factually correct statement that will destroy your life if stated. It wasn't about being an unpleasant person with unpopular opinions.

PG is implying that the phenomenon of getting shunned for having said something right-wing on Twitter is new/different enough that it implies some shift in societal attitudes. I'm arguing that it is not, and the 1985 equivalent would be a progressive being shunned for being, let's say, pro-gay-rights in small-town Missouri. The mechanism changes with technology, but the cause has not changed since Hester Prynne at least.

Re: Heresy

#984

Post by neumann »

Aidevah wrote: post #447

One of my favourite short stories by Borges is "The Theologians"[1], which deals with a contest between two theologians in suppressing heresy. It's absolutely wonderful how Borges managed to turn dry scholastic debate into a fascinating and gripping narrative. It also contains this wonderfully ironic scene when one of the theologian's past writings which was used to eradicate a previous heresy but have since fallen o…

Thanks! That is a wonderful read.

Re: Heresy

#985

Post by gedy »

_clhx wrote: post #846
gedy wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like to bully on the outgroups, now as then. Same as ever.

You do see the difference between saying gay people should die and being gay right? Lol

Of course, I'm commenting that " needs to DIE" is always bad.

Re: Heresy

#986

Post by magicroot75 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #73

Has anyone considered this whole phenomenon from a materialist analysis? Global society is more interconnected than before. The public discourse on social media platforms is huge. It’s also hugely polarized for multitudes of reasons. People (on the Internet) are getting into arguments with more people than ever before, usually with strangers. From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thoug…

This would be fine if we were moving towards canceling thoughts, and not people. In a hyperconnected society where everyone is watching everything all the time, we're all bound to be cancelled for something eventually.

Re: Heresy

#987

Post by bzbarsky »

CPLX wrote: post #827
knorker wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

James Damore was in fact fired for workplace behavior it should be noted. His manifesto was a document discussing Google’s actions and policies and was distributed to coworkers.

Written as response to a request for such comments, and distributed in the forum designated for such comments, yes?

Re: Heresy

#988

Post by bzbarsky »

themacguffinman wrote: post #848
titzer wrote: post #750

I was nodding along up until this: > 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. [2] I think there is a ton of nuance that contradicts this. For example, a white, upper-middleclass college graduate could proclai…

You're just demonstrating PG's point exactly: that the x-ism depends on who says it even though it has no relation to truth. You didn't even try to argue once that the statement is less true when a white graduate says it. The most you can say is one "might be considered" x-ist and affects a vague "value judgement". What does "might be considered subtly racist" have to do with truth? You're technically correct, the fi…

The issue is that there is an implied difference in implied causation ("difficult because of their personal qualities" vs "difficult because of the college environment", say) and the truth values _with that implication included_ might be quite different.

Re: Heresy

#989

Post by gverrilla »

Early 2000's I was in school as a teenager and reading about feminism. It looked to me very obvious, even before that, the oppression of women, and the need to stop it, alongside all violence - which demanded consciousness and dialog. I tried to advertise the concept to the females in my classroom, and with only 1 or 2 exceptions they ridiculerized me and feminism, and some even told me I was a "fag" or some equivalent. I would tell them that the "level of emancipation of women in a society is also a measure to this society's general level of emancipation" [0], and they would reply: "ok, nerd. why would you even care if you are a man, supposedly?". I'm pretty glad with the deep advances we've been able to produce since then. Love produces love, and vice-versa - and that's universally desireable. On our way to Harmonia[1].

[0], [1]: Charles Fourier

Post reply on HN