Heresy • Hacker News Board

Re: Heresy

#561

Post by erikpukinskis » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #440

leephillips wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) The concept of an inherent “gender” makes no biological nor logical sense. You can’t have been born in the “wrong body.” (2) Socrates was mostly right about democracy. (3) Seriously violent criminals, once convicted, should never bet let out of prison. (4) The US (and all nations) should have essentially open borders. (5) The US should make health insurance illegal and provide health care as a function of governm…

The first one is problematic and it needs have some context. Do you think that person can define its own gender which is different that genitalia which define sex? The other ones are opinions and I’m not aware of anybody being canceled or fired for saying those.

About to get this thread detached, but I wanted to take a stab at answering your good faith question!

My understanding is there are two groups here, and depending on where you live one or the other of them will get you into hot water:

Group A-1 believes:

1. Gendered identities are a social construct, meaning your gender is dictated by how you are perceived socially

2. Gendered expression is good

3. Every person should have equal access to all social structures

4. Therefore every person should be allowed to access whichever gender identity they prefer

5. Because gender is socially constructed, this requires your social group to be on board with assisting in the social construction of your gender identity (using the correct pronouns, etc)

6. Therefore it's wrong, and anti-freedom to deny someone's gender identity.

7. Sex is an outdated concept, existing for historical reasons to prevent #4, and in the rare cases it might be medically or sexually relevant should be replaced by a "basket of physical characteristics"... hormone levels, genital structure, etc, as the individual situation may require

Group A-2 believes:

1. Most of what A-1 believes, except:

2. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny

3. But it's inescapable in today's society

4. And people expressing gender outside of their social assignments helps break that down

Group B-1 believes:

1. Sex is still a relevant concept medically

2. Sex is still a relevant concept because some peoples' sexualities are tied to sex not gender identity

3. Sex is still a relevant concept for understanding patriarchy, and it's counterproductive to the goals of women's liberation to try to dismantle sex groups before dismantling patriarchy.

4. Encouraging transitioning as a solution to #3 is bad, because it reifies gender roles.

5. Sex is not malleable

6. Forcing others to reify your gender identity impinges on their right to build social groups around sex identities (for reasons like #2 and #3)

7. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny

8. People should express themselves however they like, but this has nothing to do with sex or "gender"

9. Gender doesn't really exist

Group B-2 believes:

1. Most of what A-2 believes, except:

2. Gendered expression is good, because tradition

3. Patriarchy is about as powerful as Matriarchy so it is not important to dismantle

4. Encouraging transitioning is bad, because tradition

IMO this debate can rage on forever because whichever side you're on, you can pick and choose from the -1 and -2 variants to concoct an evil version of either perspective.

Also, I truly love all three of: A-1, A-2, and B-1 and I think all three of them hold very important kernels of truth. As of 2022 I can't see how they could be reconciled but it one of my greatest desires that one day they could! Save us Gen Z! I don't think I'm supposed to support B-1 in public though, so I mostly don't. And from your question I think you agree that B-1 is problematic? If I had to pick just one for society I'd pick A-2, but I think it misses a lot of the picture that B-1 is trying to hold on to.

Anyway, I thought this breakdown might help answer your question? Did it?

Re: Heresy

#562

Post by dnfa » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

Biologist123 wrote: post #220

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 wo…

> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here

Yeah this bothered me. His stance on this seems so defensive and personal and he gives very few examples of heretical ideas. It makes this essay more of a boomer diatribe than anything else imo.

Re: Heresy

#563

Post by ss108 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

faichai wrote: post #499

Osmose wrote: post #258

The behavior he's calling "heresy" here cannot be evaluated in a vacuum; these kinds of statements are all contextual, ESPECIALLY hinging on who is saying them. And the reason that is the case is because the consequences of saying something are different depending on who says them. Paul Graham is wealthy and influential, and actively tries to influence folks with essays like this. So when he says something, it is jud…

I mean, he didn’t say it, but this identity politics driven perspective is entirely the current thing wrong with the left. I say this as a moderate. Rather than fall back on broad principles like free speech, you concoct evermore Byzantine rules about who can say what, given their race, gender, position of power or wealth. It’s unsustainable. It’s the Terror, but using cancellation rather than guillotine. This approa…

We just had 4 years of an identity politics Republican president (which party has totally succumbed to its idiotic, tribalist, identity-driven, populist base, discarding a lot of good conservative ideas and values in the process), so your spin on this as being "entirely the current thing wrong with the left" is disingenuous.

Dems are holding the line far better, though they too will fail, and the progressive wing will take over the party, and I'm personally not keen on that, even though I agree with them on some things.

Re: Heresy

#564

Post by bmm6o » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #334

I wish he would just give examples or at least speak slightly more plainly about his complaint. I would understand his complaint more (and be able to decide whether I agree with him, although I’m fairly sure I don’t) if he would just say something very plainly like “I liked it better in 1985 when you could say X and have zero risk of losing your job.”

There's a quotation that "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." I think the problem is that PG is determined to demonstrate that he has a great mind, and must therefore discuss only abstract ideas. Lowering the discourse to include events or people is not an option. Unfortunately, the essay isn't exactly about heresy, it's about accusations of heresy, who makes them, and if the incidence is rising. So the essay can't really get to its subject.

Re: Heresy

#565

Post by sangnoir » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #446

ScarletEmerald wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

“Deplatforming” is anti-freedom. It violates the free speech of the speaker, it violates freedom of assembly for the listeners, and it violates freedom of association for all of the parties involved. Showing up to shout someone down who had people voluntarily show up to hear them speak because you feel like you are empowered to unilaterally decide and enforce through aggression who is “allowed” to speak in your city…

Deplatforming does not violate freedom of association for all parties: you seem to be forgetting that the platform also has the right to freedom of association, and would be exercising that right by refusing to associate with the individual(s) being deplatformed.

I'm yet to see a convincing argument that broadly, one person's free speech right always trumps other's freedom of association when the other doesn't like your speech, for any reason.

Re: Heresy

#566

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

NoraCodes wrote: post #498

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine what that would be like. I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politic…

[deleted]

Re: Heresy

#567

Post by Pxtl » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #210

Pxtl wrote: post #158

It's important to remember that this particular kind of "heresy" is not about hurting an imaginary God, but actual real people. Questioning the legitimacy of geocentrism is a victimless crime. Questioning the legitimacy of gay marriage or gay adoption or sexual transitioning has very defined, specific victims that face real actual harms from these attitudes. Right now parents of trans children are being accused of be…

There is an OCEAN of difference between saying what this article is saying and being okay with the recent wave of anti-trans/anti-LGBT conservatism in the US. Someone saying that "teaching about sexuality is akin to grooming" is clearly telling a lie. If someone gets shit for it, then the hubbub/cancellation is definitely not taking priority over the question of truth or falsity . Heck, if anything, the anti-trans/an…

I have literally never heard any person complain as PG is complaining with this article about being "cancelled" about anything other than an opinion on LGBT rights.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/10503916635...

"""

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views

Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

Con: LOL no...no not those views

Me: So....deregulation?

Con: Haha no not those views either

Me: Which views, exactly?

Con: Oh, you know the ones

"""

Re: Heresy

#568

Post by amalcon » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #155

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would…

I like to point out the Sedition Act of 1918 here. About 100 years ago, a law that literally made it a crime to criticize the government was not only enacted, but upheld by the courts. Can you even imagine that today?

What people are finally noticing now is that non-government entities can also have negative impacts on free speech. They're not noticing because it just started -- e.g. lots of folks lost their jobs for vocally opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000's -- but because they're on the receiving end for once. This could be a good thing in the end, by leading us to a more complete model of civil discourse, but it's going to be painful for a while before that even has a chance to happen.

Re: Heresy

#569

Post by temp8964 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

NoraCodes wrote: post #538

wskinner wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these…

> I doubt you could find a woman, disable person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. That's not what I meant and, I think, not what I said. I did not say that we _had_ rolled back those rights, but that we were in the _process_ of doing so. Rather than moving in the direction of liberation for these groups, we are moving in the opposite direction, at leas…

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#570

Post by UncleMeat » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #366

Beltalowda wrote: post #155

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would…

The speed with which society is moving is also a factor. Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. I think Graham is slightly missing the point about our period. It's not that heresy is on the up, so much as it's on the move. Outrage is a homeless beast. We're in an Orwellian age where it changes with the seasons, so what is h…

> Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise.

The actual source of this quote is a literal Nazi who was using this quote to claim that Jewish people run the world.

It is also a silly idea. It is considered rude to make fun of autistic people at work, but autistic people clearly aren't running the world through some secret cabal.