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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Heresy

#841

Post by civilized »

titzer wrote: post #750

I was nodding along up until this: > 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. [2] I think there is a ton of nuance that contradicts this. For example, a white, upper-middleclass college graduate could proclai…

Judging racist insinuation from tone of voice, emphasis, and social context can definitely be valid. But I think it's really not a great idea to jump to negative conclusions about what a speaker said based primarily on the racial identity of the speaker. And making judgments primarily based on identity is what Paul is criticizing.

Re: Heresy

#842

Post by telchior »

knorker wrote: post #775
telchior wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to give it the article a more positive reading: at least for myself, I can imagine several opinions I could express in the United States which would count as "heresy". I'd imagine that if those opinions were said out loud (whether or not I really believed them) my employers would fire me, friends would unfriend me, etc. But, I can't really think of any supporting real-world stories where that reaction wouldn't…

Neither was fired for work performance. I think anything else is a distracting justification, not a reason. James Damore was fired by a mob who boldly proclaimed "I didn't read his manifesto. I didn't have to". None of these firings were for honest reasons, but all just to appease the mob. A mob who at least in the last case didn't bother to even find out what he said. There are many more examples. I could list them…

There are many reasons outside of work performance to fire people. For example: someone who lies on their resume, then does a generally good job. That's generally a fireable offense in isolation from performance (though hopefully not as an automatic decision).

You assert that the two I named were fired from public pressure, but that looks to me like self-confirmed speculation based on what you want to believe. Were I a business employing either of those two people, I believe my own reaction would be to fire them. Not for woke reasons; they're just walking, talking disasters. Why employ assholes and idiots?

Anyway, since you mention it I do recognize more of these names, including the ones mentioned by the book you cited. They didn't come immediately to mind. But let's say James Damore is the best example in support of Paul Graham's essay (and far more nuanced and potentially sympathetic than the two I named). He argued (in part) for biological determinism, which is definitely "heresy"; and it's definitely possible to imagine a world in which that would lead to debate rather than firing.

If the essay had actually named a figure like Damore, would it have been more convincing? I can't answer for everyone but for me the answer would be: slightly more convincing, but not a great deal more. There's just a lot more to the story than "this person got fired for woke heresy", and it's not that convincing to do this kind of hand-waving simplification.

Re: Heresy

#843

Post by amalcon »

bendbro wrote: post #741
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in v…

If I said: 1. "Fuck Jesus, fuck America, kill all men." 2. "Fuck BLM, fuck diversity." Which one do you think would get me cancelled? Conservatives have comically little social power. Further, you can basically say anything you want around them, while conversations with the average liberal are a careful affair. Perhaps though I am blind. Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations? The defin…

> Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations?

Colin Kaepernick is the most obvious.

Re: Heresy

#844

Post by Natsu »

rectang wrote: post #792
keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

> In creating an us-vs-them mentality I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. It's just plain old tribalist hypocrisy: people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. First-degree intolerance (including but not limited to "x-ism") is acceptable…

The degrees are more a matter of perspective than fact, though.

Christians consider Satanists the intolerant ones and vice-versa. Both can be claimed to be voluntary association, but if one isn't a choice, then neither is the other.

Re: Heresy

#845

Post by earleybird »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #838
keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

He's a thinker. Just not a deep one. He addresses topics just enough to scratch the itch he wants to scratch without putting any meaningful thought into them, which is why his essays are so easy to discard. Sure, they work for like-minded people who want to drink from the tap of the successful businessman stereotype, but they're usually not useful whenever he strays from talking about business.

No post body was provided.

Re: Heresy

#846

Post by _clhx »

gedy wrote: post #729
Ma8ee wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1985 you could say “homosexuality is a disease and all gay should be locked up” and you wouldn’t have to be too worried about your employment. Today you can say “I’m gay” and don’t have to worry about being fired for it. I like today’s freedom of expression better.

People like to bully on the outgroups, now as then. Same as ever.

You do see the difference between saying gay people should die and being gay right? Lol

Re: Heresy

#847

Post by dragonwriter »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #838
keithwhor wrote: post #698

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and…

He's a thinker. Just not a deep one. He addresses topics just enough to scratch the itch he wants to scratch without putting any meaningful thought into them, which is why his essays are so easy to discard. Sure, they work for like-minded people who want to drink from the tap of the successful businessman stereotype, but they're usually not useful whenever he strays from talking about business.

It’s shallow with a purpose; the evasive on details is necessary to use the vague platitudes as a vehicle for validating right-wing propaganda points without making it clear that that is what he is doing.

PG is capable of at least somewhat greater depth, and has displayed it on occasion, but it suits his purpose to avoid that here.

Re: Heresy

#848

Post by themacguffinman »

titzer wrote: post #750

I was nodding along up until this: > 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. [2] I think there is a ton of nuance that contradicts this. For example, a white, upper-middleclass college graduate could proclai…

You're just demonstrating PG's point exactly: that the x-ism depends on who says it even though it has no relation to truth.

You didn't even try to argue once that the statement is less true when a white graduate says it. The most you can say is one "might be considered" x-ist and affects a vague "value judgement". What does "might be considered subtly racist" have to do with truth?

You're technically correct, the first statement might be considered subtly racist because as PG argues: that's the heretical world we live in. I'd find it hard to argue that PG is socially crippled when he is precisely spelling out this social dynamic that leads to heresy.

The only difference is you seem content that society works this way.

Re: Heresy

#849

Post by imgabe »

ryanobjc wrote: post #514
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 looked at some of these academic circumstances and the ones I looked at were very misleading. Often times the only account we have is from the fired person, who is obviously going to push the most favorable narrative. When you dig in, there is something else amiss. But this focus - deliberately engineered btw - on right wing firing is misleading. There is an order of magnitude more firing and suppression of left…

> There is an order of magnitude more firing and suppression of left wing voices at college.

Where? Which colleges? Can you give a single example of someone being fired from a college or university for a left wing position?

Re: Heresy

#850

Post by 0xy »

tlogan wrote: post #417

By reading comments here it seems like racists and sexists think this blog is written with intent to support their agendas. I wish PG clearly spell out that is not ok to say that other people are less of a human. And with “heresy” he meant “vax mandates”, “gun control” and other general issues. I’m ok dicusssing gun control, taxes, etc. but I (and anybody I know) are really not ok when somebody says “evolution does n…

Which ideas/thoughts should be banned and should result in immediate firing? You're suggesting gun control is okay, what's not okay?
Post reply on HN