9 ms·

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the envi

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

BadassFractal 9y ago
The problem isn't the critique of ideas, most people are happy to have an intellectually honest debate about their merits and shortcomings. The issue is instantly accusing someone of serious moral failings and painting them as a social pariah to be ostracized, the instant they put forward a locally unorthodox view. One group is constantly expanding the area of topics that are taboo, the other believes that having taboos is a bad long term plan for society.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Maybe Sam just has serious moral failings? If everywhere he goes people have a visceral reaction to what he's saying maybe there is some ethical shortcoming there. He's the common denominator in all the situations.
  - BadassFractal 9y ago
    The point is that it's not everywhere, it's very much specific to the Bay area. The claim is that the Bay was a lot more open to controversial ideas in the past, and it's closing down as of today to only leave room for local ideological orthodoxy. Many of those ideas aren't controversial in most other parts of the world. The point, I'm assuming, is that Sam doesn't want to pack up his stuff and leave, he wants the Bay to become more open.
    - Gargoyle 9y ago
      The right control experiment here would be to do more business in other areas. Open a YC branch in another city. Sam and other partners can spend more time there and find out if it really is more conducive to new ideas. If the other location(s) really does turn out to be more conducive, ramp it up and close down the Bay Area operation. Maybe the Bay loses out, but other places and the wider world win.
  - azeotropic 9y ago
    The point is it's not everywhere he goes, just everywhere he goes in the Bay Area.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    This isn't specific to Sam, you're doing exactly what he is complaining about. Stop criticising the person and try to criticise the post instead.
    - geofft 9y ago
      Why? Is the idea that Sam is morally corrupt too dangerous, too heretical to be voiced? Should we not debate ideas?
      - psyc 9y ago
        I find this sort of too-clever reflexive argument constructing impossible to take seriously. I propose a new fallacy: Argumentum ad Gödel.
        geofft 9y ago
        I'm pretty serious with this argument, though. The entire point of the post here is that no idea is too odious to be considered unworthy of polite debate. Life extension? Sure! Gay people are evil? Sure! (For some reason, and against all evidence, we hope nobody will be convinced of that.) Eugenics is great? Sure! People of a certain race are genetically inferior and unworthy of human rights? Sure! Those who are apostate from my religion should be killed? Sure! This article advocates for literally no bounds on what should be considered an idea worthy of protection, because who knows when a "wacky" idea might be secretly good. I don't believe I'm exaggerating one bit from what the article says. (I might be exaggerating from what the author means, but only because we're supposed to self-censor some of those ideas, and the article is unclear on which ones remain worthy of self-censorship.) So why are we treating "This person is morally bankrupt" as the sort of argument that is unworthy of polite debate? What fundamentally makes it a worse idea than any of the above? I think there's an incompleteness problem here, yes - but I think that problem genuinely applies to the original argument. I'm just pointing it out. (And the gist of The Abolition of Man, which I mentioned in another comment, is essentially an incompleteness argument against the idea that you can have an ethical society evaluate its own ethics without a base moral code.)
jstanley 9y ago
No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  I keep hearing that from people saying things like... "I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days. Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if it is being presented as a public good, the owner of the tech gets to become a new robber baron. Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in need and there is a system in place that generates people in need. Downvotes away!
  - ak_yo 9y ago
    I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this: A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?
    - psyc 9y ago
      You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.
      - igor47 9y ago
ak_yo 9y ago
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.
- jedharris 9y ago
  The people involved felt they had to leave town. That's pretty substantial.
  - bqe 9y ago
    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?
encinotech 9y ago
The problem isn't the discourse, but to categorize the people themselves - "people working on this must be really unethical". It's only that last part he is against. It should go like this: Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment Me: Ok lets talk about that... But you can't do that if now you're already unethical, etc.
alien_at_work 9y ago
>Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Your "someone else", whom you seem to think responds in a completely reasonable manner, makes a highly oppinionated statement and then judges people based on that oppinion. 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". [1] In fact I find the idea beyond ludicrious. If people live longer, they're likely to put off having children until much much later (people in the west already wait about as long as they physically can). Further, if people like the Koch brothers knew they would have to stay on this planet for 10k years maybe they wouldn't be so willing to destroy the next 50-100 years for a nice 5-10 now.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >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 ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? How long until you start jailing us?!?! Anyways somehow I don't think people are calling just any idea unethical. Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Come on man. >It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Then make the argument. Where Sam cuts this conversation is totally arbitrary but it invokes the feeling that calling someone unethical ends the conversation. No, it's a claim. You don't think it's unethical then argue back. Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.
firstplacelast 9y ago
As a scientist that has worked for a medical lab and pharma in the past, I actually have somewhat similar reasons for leaving the industry and I actually feel like my reasons are controversial and I’m “not allowed to talk about them.” Scientists get paid like children, seriously most in medium size cities can’t afford a mortgage on the crappiest house in the cities they work in. I will not build products to extend the lives of NIMBYs that vote against high-density housing and public transportation all for a shit salary that can’t even get me a house! I’m basically extending the lives of selfish people while simultaneously making it harder for me to ever buy a home. Die NIMBYs Die. I’d love to help you live longer if you’d let me own a home, but you’ve proven you’ll prevent that as long as it benefits you. So, die NIMBYs die.
nilkn 9y ago
An example that comes to mind is that Apple's chief of diversity (a black woman) was recently fired and replaced by a white woman for the following comment: > "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation." I find this to be a pretty mundane statement, and it's fairly spectacular to me that a 20 year veteran of the company was fired for saying it. I also think there's a lot of irony in the fact that Apple removed a black woman from a position of power just because she suggested that diversity as a concept should not be reduced completely to skin color and gender. --- So the problem is not with the criticism of ideas. It's that folks are being fired or completely ostracized for ideas that deviate even slightly from established consensus.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  1) That's very different from the example Sam gave. 2) Is that a problem of speech or a problem of the authoritarian nature of corporate power?
  - nilkn 9y ago
    Sam gave an example of someone feeling sufficiently ostracized that they left the region. I don't see how that's very different. Feeling forced out of the city or region is very similar to being fired from a corporate job.
- GuiA 9y ago
  All news outlets report her leaving of her own accord. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-inclusion-denise-young-smith-is-leaving/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-... https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-leaving/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-l... Please post a source documenting that person being fired.
jedharris 9y ago
Criticism: Helps to create a healthy society. Toxic environment motivating you to move to another town: Tends to create an unhealthy society.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

BadassFractal 9y ago

The problem isn't the critique of ideas, most people are happy to have an intellectually honest debate about their merits and shortcomings. The issue is instantly accusing someone of serious moral failings and painting them as a social pariah to be ostracized, the instant they put forward a locally unorthodox view. One group is constantly expanding the area of topics that are taboo, the other believes that having taboos is a bad long term plan for society.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Maybe Sam just has serious moral failings? If everywhere he goes people have a visceral reaction to what he's saying maybe there is some ethical shortcoming there. He's the common denominator in all the situations.
- BadassFractal 9y ago
  The point is that it's not everywhere, it's very much specific to the Bay area. The claim is that the Bay was a lot more open to controversial ideas in the past, and it's closing down as of today to only leave room for local ideological orthodoxy. Many of those ideas aren't controversial in most other parts of the world. The point, I'm assuming, is that Sam doesn't want to pack up his stuff and leave, he wants the Bay to become more open.
  - Gargoyle 9y ago
    The right control experiment here would be to do more business in other areas. Open a YC branch in another city. Sam and other partners can spend more time there and find out if it really is more conducive to new ideas. If the other location(s) really does turn out to be more conducive, ramp it up and close down the Bay Area operation. Maybe the Bay loses out, but other places and the wider world win.
- azeotropic 9y ago
  The point is it's not everywhere he goes, just everywhere he goes in the Bay Area.
- jstanley 9y ago
  This isn't specific to Sam, you're doing exactly what he is complaining about. Stop criticising the person and try to criticise the post instead.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Why? Is the idea that Sam is morally corrupt too dangerous, too heretical to be voiced? Should we not debate ideas?
    - psyc 9y ago
      I find this sort of too-clever reflexive argument constructing impossible to take seriously. I propose a new fallacy: Argumentum ad Gödel.
      - geofft 9y ago
        I'm pretty serious with this argument, though. The entire point of the post here is that no idea is too odious to be considered unworthy of polite debate. Life extension? Sure! Gay people are evil? Sure! (For some reason, and against all evidence, we hope nobody will be convinced of that.) Eugenics is great? Sure! People of a certain race are genetically inferior and unworthy of human rights? Sure! Those who are apostate from my religion should be killed? Sure! This article advocates for literally no bounds on what should be considered an idea worthy of protection, because who knows when a "wacky" idea might be secretly good. I don't believe I'm exaggerating one bit from what the article says. (I might be exaggerating from what the author means, but only because we're supposed to self-censor some of those ideas, and the article is unclear on which ones remain worthy of self-censorship.) So why are we treating "This person is morally bankrupt" as the sort of argument that is unworthy of polite debate? What fundamentally makes it a worse idea than any of the above? I think there's an incompleteness problem here, yes - but I think that problem genuinely applies to the original argument. I'm just pointing it out. (And the gist of The Abolition of Man, which I mentioned in another comment, is essentially an incompleteness argument against the idea that you can have an ethical society evaluate its own ethics without a base moral code.)

jstanley 9y ago

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

youdontknowtho 9y ago
I keep hearing that from people saying things like... "I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days. Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if it is being presented as a public good, the owner of the tech gets to become a new robber baron. Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in need and there is a system in place that generates people in need. Downvotes away!
- ak_yo 9y ago
  I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this: A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?
  - psyc 9y ago
    You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.
    - igor47 9y ago

ak_yo 9y ago

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.

jedharris 9y ago
The people involved felt they had to leave town. That's pretty substantial.
- bqe 9y ago
  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?

encinotech 9y ago

The problem isn't the discourse, but to categorize the people themselves - "people working on this must be really unethical". It's only that last part he is against. It should go like this: Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment Me: Ok lets talk about that... But you can't do that if now you're already unethical, etc.

alien_at_work 9y ago

>Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Your "someone else", whom you seem to think responds in a completely reasonable manner, makes a highly oppinionated statement and then judges people based on that oppinion. 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". [1] In fact I find the idea beyond ludicrious. If people live longer, they're likely to put off having children until much much later (people in the west already wait about as long as they physically can). Further, if people like the Koch brothers knew they would have to stay on this planet for 10k years maybe they wouldn't be so willing to destroy the next 50-100 years for a nice 5-10 now.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>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 ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? How long until you start jailing us?!?! Anyways somehow I don't think people are calling just any idea unethical. Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Come on man. >It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Then make the argument. Where Sam cuts this conversation is totally arbitrary but it invokes the feeling that calling someone unethical ends the conversation. No, it's a claim. You don't think it's unethical then argue back. Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.

firstplacelast 9y ago

As a scientist that has worked for a medical lab and pharma in the past, I actually have somewhat similar reasons for leaving the industry and I actually feel like my reasons are controversial and I’m “not allowed to talk about them.” Scientists get paid like children, seriously most in medium size cities can’t afford a mortgage on the crappiest house in the cities they work in. I will not build products to extend the lives of NIMBYs that vote against high-density housing and public transportation all for a shit salary that can’t even get me a house! I’m basically extending the lives of selfish people while simultaneously making it harder for me to ever buy a home. Die NIMBYs Die. I’d love to help you live longer if you’d let me own a home, but you’ve proven you’ll prevent that as long as it benefits you. So, die NIMBYs die.

nilkn 9y ago

An example that comes to mind is that Apple's chief of diversity (a black woman) was recently fired and replaced by a white woman for the following comment: > "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation." I find this to be a pretty mundane statement, and it's fairly spectacular to me that a 20 year veteran of the company was fired for saying it. I also think there's a lot of irony in the fact that Apple removed a black woman from a position of power just because she suggested that diversity as a concept should not be reduced completely to skin color and gender. --- So the problem is not with the criticism of ideas. It's that folks are being fired or completely ostracized for ideas that deviate even slightly from established consensus.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
1) That's very different from the example Sam gave. 2) Is that a problem of speech or a problem of the authoritarian nature of corporate power?
- nilkn 9y ago
  Sam gave an example of someone feeling sufficiently ostracized that they left the region. I don't see how that's very different. Feeling forced out of the city or region is very similar to being fired from a corporate job.
GuiA 9y ago
All news outlets report her leaving of her own accord. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-inclusion-denise-young-smith-is-leaving/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-... https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-leaving/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-l... Please post a source documenting that person being fired.

jedharris 9y ago

Criticism: Helps to create a healthy society. Toxic environment motivating you to move to another town: Tends to create an unhealthy society.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]