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

231–240 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#231

Post by belovedeagle »

r00fus wrote: post #115
avar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of someone living in mainland Europe the legislation around bars in the U.S. is quite baffling. I was over in San Francisco last summer and walked out of a bar pint in hand to tag along for a cigarette break, we were promptly chastised about it. I apologized saying that I'd briefly forgotten what continent I was on. It's also not unusual to see children milling around with their parents in bars i…

> If you ban guns in bars then someone who carries a gun around anyway will have to stash it somewhere before they arrive, or risk breaking the law. Coat check for guns? A peace tie (zip-tie) on the holster? It's not like this isn't a well understood problem.

The first option could lead to easier theft of the gun, putting guns into the wrong hands; it also means bars have to be responsible for something they may not want to deal with for moral or political (i.e., PR) grounds; the second amounts to a stigmatization of gun owners in the form of an undue burden upon them and no one else.

Make what you will of those arguments, but note both options could also be applied to car keys of people entering a bar (check your keys so we can evaluate your intoxication before giving them back). In fact, one could note that cars are a tool much much more often used by the intoxicated to murder (commit manslaughter, if you like).

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#232

Post by pronoiac »

Blahah wrote: post #224
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

I don't really understand how you can think there's a root cause but not be able to say it on HN. Since ggreer says he can't say, can anyone explain what he's getting at?

My guess: It's about sympathy and compassion for those not at our level.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#233

Post by pron »

nostromo wrote: post #136
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

Dude, you're not trying hard enough. :) Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism, agism, Islamophobia, homophobia. There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN! I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men…

Although pg touches on the question of truth in the social sciences, I think he accidentally touches on the answer but then misses it. Precisely because society is so fluid, the question of what is "true" not only does not have a clear answer, but the "truth" itself carries little value. Things might be true today but not tomorrow not only due to changing fashions, but they might be objectively true only because of circumstances that are in our control. Suppose Asians really are smarter than Caucasians. Not only is this "truth" unhelpful, it is also, possibly, fluid.

The reason why people often choose to condemn those who speak an unpopular truth is because the truth is a powerful and dangerous weapon, often used to fight progress. This is what is known as the naturalistic fallacy, or the is-ought fallacy: the fact that something is true does not mean that it is good, or that it cannot change if we try hard enough. A "lie" might be more valuable than the "truth", because a lie might be a bright hope for the future, while the truth is simply the status quo.

For some reason, even people that are usually curious and generally skeptical, sometimes stop questioning society when they find data demonstrating that some notion is "true". They don't take the extra step to ask why is it true, and can we change it? Or, should we change it?

That is why the "truth" in the social sciences might be a dangerous thing, because if people come to assign the same meaning to a true finding in physics or in anthropology, we have a problem. While we cannot change the laws of physics, we can certainly change the social order. And we have.

I don't think, then, that "truth" is all that important when it comes to ideology. What's important is picking values that you feel comfortable believing, and staying true to them.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#234

Post by davidtanner »

JackFr wrote: post #51
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."

That's the real thing you can't (respectably) say - not the trope of "God isn't real"

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#235

Post by slvv »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #143
dreamfactory2 wrote: post #129

> "most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics" This is simply an embarrassingly stupid and ignorant comment. The rest of it is fine if stating the obvious/sophomoric. I'd have like to have seen him take the interesting nuggets on fashion being political in nature and run with it (alread…

I'd be surprised if PhDs in either of those fields genuinely disagreed with that.

Well, I don't quite qualify - I have a BA in French and I'm working on a PhD in another humanities discipline - but I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that a physicist could do what a French literature specialist does but not vice versa.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#237

Post by mikeash »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #164
mikeash wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussing God is a completely practical taboo, though. Most people, perhaps all people, don't arrive at their opinion on religion through rational thought. I make this claim due to the obvious fact that there are a lot of contradictory religious beliefs out there, and if most people used rational thought then you'd expect most people to have similar beliefs. They don't, thus most people aren't rational about it. Sin…

Some folks do arrive at their opinions rationally, just sayin' :-)

Sure, but far from a majority.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#238

Post by onmydesk »

camelite wrote: post #213
onmydesk wrote: post #53

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.

So sexism is bad then. I guarantee you this is not something "you can't say", or goes against today's moral fashion.

What you get a reaction to is not sexism is bad. It is that sexism in favour of women is bad. You're not allowed to say that.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#239

Post by incompatible »

Pxtl wrote: post #5

I was going to post a comment but I deleted it.

Well, Paul did suggest that you should keep your ideas to yourself. Why give the NSA a list of all your subversive thoughts anyway? They can and will be used against you, if the situation requires it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#240

Post by meric »

onmydesk wrote: post #238
camelite wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So sexism is bad then. I guarantee you this is not something "you can't say", or goes against today's moral fashion.

What you get a reaction to is not sexism is bad. It is that sexism in favour of women is bad. You're not allowed to say that.

The only mention of this taboo on this thread, and it is more dangerous to say this in today's society than everything else suggested by everyone. Congratulations.

I have more to add:

It is either extremely difficult or impossible for a society to treat its men and women equally. Though it is possible to grant them equal respect, the experience of living as a man and living as a woman is, and always will be, different.

Assigning target ratios of men/women in various industries makes as much sense as making sure each man have an equal number of sexual opportunities. There are some jobs that, in general, one sex is better at, and so it may be perfectly possible for one sex to, on average, be the majority of those doing that job, as well as, on average, attain a higher wage in that role, achieved without the interference of some male authority past or present.

That would only get us started on the list of things we aren't allowed to say.

Post reply on HN