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

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#211

Post by themanmaran »

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…

Agreed on the individual side. It's a response to decision fatigue. You cannot effectively understand every individual, their opinions and intentions, while scaling your personal "social network" up to thousands of people. So instead you apply a label and move on.

But "modern discourse just can't scale" is a bit of a defeatist mindset. Surly there is a solution out there for reducing polarization.

Re: Heresy

#212

Post by dasil003 »

I think this is largely a social media phenomenon. Twitter flash mobs can destroy people’s lives in a vary offhanded, drive-by fashion simply because people with actual power are scared of them and capitulate to unreasonable demands. But if you talk with people in real life, you’ll find much more nuanced thinking and willingness to engage in open-minded debate. The problem is giving too much attention to extremist views.

Re: Heresy

#213

Post by cs702 »

We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own.

But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences.

For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community:

* Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.”

* Heresy: “All entrepreneurs in the US owe much their success to past government spending on infrastructure and education, so they should be personally taxed at high rates to repay their enormous debt to society.”

* Heresy: “High redistribution of wealth via government spending is necessary for sustaining economic growth.”

* Heresy: “Silicon Valley is an exclusionary club, not a meritocracy.”

Proclaiming any of these things, say, at a dinner party with startup CEOs, is socially equivalent to jumping on top of the table, pulling your pants down, and passing gas. In fact, the latter may be more socially acceptable -- it's less threatening to the startup zeitgeist.

Re: Heresy

#214

Post by jroblak »

ekianjo wrote: post #154
jroblak wrote: post #22

Genuinely funny coming from the dude who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter.

> who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter. Does his block makes you lose your job? If not, you are missing the point.

I took this essay's main thrust to be around a lack of nuance in the discourse. His own behavior indicates he's pretty unwilling to have any nuance himself; pot calling the kettle black, etc.

Re: Heresy

#215

Post by Koshkin »

ekianjo wrote: post #154
jroblak wrote: post #22

Genuinely funny coming from the dude who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter.

> who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter. Does his block makes you lose your job? If not, you are missing the point.

“Does losing your job kill you? If not, you are missing the point.”

Re: Heresy

#216

Post by koonsolo »

muglug wrote: post #36

> Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth I disagree. The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either). By banning those sorts of statements you’re not banning the truth, you’re just quieting assholes.

I guess the original article didn't take misleading statements into account. Because your statement might indeed be factually true, but very misleading.

What about "Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true, when the statement is clear in its intentions and not misleading?". Would you agree with that?

Re: Heresy

#217

Post by kardianos »

mmastrac wrote: post #4

What I find most interesting are those arguing against "cancel culture" and the revival of heretics don't find issue with things like the "critical race theory" boogeyman and the "don't say gay"-style bills preventing teaching of sexuality topics. It's interesting how consistency of free thought isn't really the important thing here.

Yes, I have a problem with teachers talking to my kindergarten kid about sex.

Re: Heresy

#218

Post by ALittleLight »

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…

I suppose you have to unpack pronouns when you are evaluating truth or falsity of a statement and maybe add some additional context. If you say "I am hungry" when we evaluate that sentence we have to unpack it to something like "Yojo is hungry at time X" so that way your statement would be equally true or false if I said "it" (the unpacked version) or an hour after you said it and had eaten a full meal.

Re: Heresy

#219

Post by h2odragon »

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…

I read that as "Truths can be stated by anyone, and are still true". If you are saying some truths can only be said or are only true for some groups... We'll have to agree to disagree.

Re: Heresy

#220

Post by Biologist123 »

This essay was somewhat high on opinion, somewhat low on evidence. Paul Graham tweets a lot about this issue, and cancel culture is something he is apparently very sensitive too. It makes me wonder what happened - as given his lack of evidence - it appears to be an emotional reaction rather than a logical one.

As an aside, most examples of people being fired for expressing opinions seem to come from academia. I’ve wondered if that might be due to a change in the cost of university education, which means universities are more akin to businesses servicing clients. And the first thing you’ll always hear in a client-facing business is…

_”Don’t piss off your customers”._

A sad commercial reality because a diversity of opinion in education is valuable.

Post reply on HN