Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#51

Post by JackFr »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Forget God -- a belief in any transcendent property or existence or even a rejection of pure reductionism is typically greeted with a scowl and an argument which boils down to "Come on. . . . you really don't believe that."

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#52

Post by JoeAltmaier »

waps wrote: post #35
ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church. And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read…

That Socrates thing is curious. His crime: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."

Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#53

Post by onmydesk »

This all rather reminds me of the thinking that brought about the female founders conference.

I have faith that at some point in the future this form of sexism will become less fashionable !! What were we thinking you will all say. And no-one will remember the dissenters.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#54

Post by clarry »

cryoshon wrote: post #39
mef wrote: post #25

Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers? If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told. The other alternative would be that you independently consid…

It's possible, yeah, but you have to be particularly insensitive to both verbal and nonverbal rejection cues in order to be willing to do it more than once. Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other with a blank/expectant/fearful face.

Or downvote you to hell.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#55

Post by hobs »

brd wrote: post #30

"Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?" I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate from yesterday. How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far more…

I had this thought this morning, though of a slightly different tone. The radio talking head mentioned that they were going to interview an anti-civilizationist, someone who apparently thinks that developed society is unsustainable and will be the end of us all. Apparently he advocates for a return to pre-civilization?

I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If this involves some sacrifice of human lives, it will save trillions in the long run. Pre-civilizaiton is just waiting for the next asteroid to impact the planet."

I don't understand how someone could be against civilization.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#56

Post by declan »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

>It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room.

You're right in general, though as points out modern forms of "gun control" do have late 19th century racist roots. But outright criminal prohibitions on personal possession of firearms -- which we had in the U.S. in some areas before the Supreme Court's Heller decision -- would have been unthinkable. So would effectively complete bans on carrying weapons both concealed or openly, which some areas still have until the Supreme Court rules in the next 2A case up for arguments this fall.

> But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.

It depends on who you talk to. If you were in a room filled with libertarian-minded engineers at Google or Microsoft, and there are plenty of them, you'd be the one laughed out of the room. Or if you were in a diner in most rural areas of the United States. But in certain coastal enclaves, yes, "gun control" has come to have a religious import.

Though the taboo-to-question topic I thought of first when reading pg's 2004 essay (a well written one, too) was anthropogenic global warming.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#57

Post by Jun8 »

"What can't we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things people do say, and get in trouble for."

I was thinking of this very essay when pg "got into trouble" for his comments about female founders, whenever I see vicious backlash to dissent here whenever some of these issues are discussed. I think (haven't read anything to back this, absolutely my own personal feeling) that debacle may have had just a little bit in his decision to step down.

Read the section headed Why once again, it's gold. This piece ranks in my personal top ten pg essays.

It's so interesting that the piece mentions Summers, albeit one year earlier than the famous speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be...). I would so love to sit down with pg and have his honest opinions on this subject. Of course, not probably he cannot afford to deviate from ""i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto."

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#59

Post by hubtree »

robobro wrote: post #4

Do you think you'll raise your children to believe in Santa, HN?

My mother was insistent that my siblings and I knew Santa wasn't real. She was very naive as a child, and when she was 16 someone at school made a joke about kids that believe in Santa. She got in an argument with them, herself believing that Santa was real. Kids were cruel, as they are, and I guess it followed her for the rest of her school days.

My own children are young right now, so I let them enjoy it. I'll just make sure when they get a little older they know who's really buying those presents.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#60

Post by declan »

sirkneeland wrote: post #38
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".

Same here. Someday when I have a HN Karma score in the bazillions I will feel free to say what I really think. Until then I feel compelled to largely hew to the HN party line.

I hope this is tongue in cheek. Disagreeing with the majority your peers (as I've done frequently here) could still lead you the minority who agrees with you to upvote you. Unlike politics, it's not a winner-takes-all system.

But more to the point, and the reason I hope this is tongue in cheek, I hope nobody here actually optimizes for or cares about a "HN Karma score in the bazillions." Last I checked you can't cash in HN Karma for a fiat $$$ check or happiness. There's a bigger world out there, folks.

Post reply on HN