E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#441

Post by tomtheelder » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #363

dguaraglia wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of th…

Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.) >they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how…

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies.

Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick studies that sort of reinforced his preexisting beliefs, which is kind of the opposite of science.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#442

Post by GuiA » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

Still trying to wrap my head around what he's trying to get at exactly (interesting that he never actually says what people in China accepted more than in the Bay Area - my bet is that it's not something about human rights in China) - but so far the only 2 things I'm getting are:

1) It somehow should be acceptable, in a dream society, to say that gay people are evil, but not to question the ethics of scientism.

2) A white dude who doesn't speak Chinese somehow finds China to be a better place for startups and freedom of speech, because there is some backlash against the technolibertarianism he peddles in his home city. Never mind that political activists routinely get executed in China and all that.

Sam seems like he has gone far into the deep end. Not sure if this what happens to your brain when you are super rich and constantly surrounded with people as rich as you, but I am struggling to make sense of it any other way.

If this had been posted by anyone else than the CEO of YCombinator, it'd have been dismissed like the drivel that it is.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#443

Post by seizethecheese » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

mintplant wrote: post #279

throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

Okay. I grew up in small town Louisiana, across the street from a swamp, where a baby alligator once crawled up into our ditch. Coming to California, and then to San Francisco, felt like shrugging off a weight I'd never realized I'd been carrying. I think what you're experiencing is value mismatch. When the culture won't bend the way you're used to, it can seem as though it's resistant to bending at all. But you your…

> I think what you're experiencing is value mismatch. When the culture won't bend the way you're used to, it can seem as though it's resistant to bending at all.

If I need to match a culture's values in order to have an open discussion, that culture is intolerant.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#444

Post by RodericDay » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #431

groby_b wrote: post #429

Sam Altman is an idiot. The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them. And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But there are consequences to your speech . And the conseq…

You know that Altman himself is gay, right?

So is Peter Thiel. What's your point?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#445

Post by groby_b » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #431

groby_b wrote: post #429

Sam Altman is an idiot. The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them. And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But there are consequences to your speech . And the conseq…

You know that Altman himself is gay, right?

Yes. And? That has nothing to do with the argument I just made.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#446

Post by bqe » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

jedharris wrote: post #210

ak_yo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're exactly right. His argument is completely self-defeating: it's a perfect example of shutting down criticism on the basis of tone. He's just dismissing critique out of hand (because it's "politically correct") without actually engaging with its substance.

The people involved felt they had to leave town . That's pretty substantial.

Assuming these people actually exist, don't you think they should have a little more backbone? If you can't handle any criticism of your ideas, how can you be an effective advocate?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#447

Post by triangleman » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

Cshelton wrote: post #245

throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

To add to that as someone who grew up in Dallas, Texas, has lived in what many consider the most "liberal" parts of the U.S., and now back in Dallas (Texas forever); The thing I hear the most from people who have moved to Dallas recently or visiting is "Everyone here is so nice". I hear it all the time. Even work colleges who are in town for business. I heard one say a few weeks ago how nice people are here after som…

Have you considered that the culture of hospitality in Texas might be related to the values found in the Bible you are so quick to dismiss?

Values are like the vitamins of culture: You don't notice how helpful they are until you get scurvy.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#448

Post by Aaron1011 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

alien_at_work wrote: post #196

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad". Well the jail comparison is really far away. The boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. >No, he's asking not to be criticized for his…

>Well the jail comparison is really far away. People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail? >boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. You don't find it bad that a bunch of people,…

> You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion

What is an 'objective opinion'?

> get to ruin someones business and/or career?

Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's the latter, what would that even mean? Should people be forced to buy from a particular company?

> I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now

If calling someone unethical is "shutting down a conversation", what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth?

> Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.

As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#449

Post by GuiA » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #400

Most of the comments here are about culture war and missing the more interesting point of the essay. We knew political tribalism was getting bad in SF. But isn't insane that things like life extension and genetic engineering are becoming a victim to this? I wouldn't have even thought these issues were controversial or political. These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them be…

> These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be very concerned about this.

That's just like, your opinion man.

If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else, who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare)

These issues are fundamentally political, and there is no reason that they should be above any form of discourse or criticism.

If someone's feelings are hurt because there is a backlash against their technoscientism, that's on no one else but them.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#450

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #435

slededit wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless. Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotional…

>Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. That doesn't make any sense. If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? Most people probably use the direct vs second order distinction when it's themselves wh…

> If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not?

This is a common moral principle; it is found in, for instance, the classical Christian doctrine on homicide, where directly willed killing is (leaving aside war and capital punishment) categorically prohibited, but killing (even when it is a certain result, or as nearly so as practically occurs) incidental to some act with a different end is not categorically prohibited, but judged according to the proportionality of the risked harm of the act with the harm it was avoiding. (Self-defense doctrine in American, and some other, law is ultimately strongly influenced by this principle, though it diverges a bit from it.)