4 ms·

We're thinkers and makers. We move fast and break things. We break laws and social conventions to disrupt entire industries. We dictate how billions of people

We're thinkers and makers. We move fast and break things. We break laws and social conventions to disrupt entire industries. We dictate how billions of people interact and transact. But don't dare criticize us, we're so fragile we can't take it.

solipsism 9y ago
Surely there's room for people to vehemently disagree without being called fragile and "unable to take it".
- nl 9y ago
  He said that they are literally leaving because people couldn't take arguments against life extension. I think life extension is great, but I think leaving because people disagree with that is close to the definition of "unable to take it".
  - bthornbury 9y ago
    Arguments against? Or the social consequences of being on the "wrong" side of a controversial argument? I'd assert the latter...
    - nl 9y ago
      I’m not sure that matters? Or rather, the specifics of the controversial argument matter a lot. If someone is unable to find people who agree that helping people live longer then perhaps there is something else going on, because that doesn’t seem a hard argument to make. OTOH, if they are making the argument that Hitler was correct, then yes I would unashamedly hope there are social consequences.
nv-vn 9y ago
It's not about criticism. It's about harassment and smear campaigns. The thing is, most people want criticism because they want to have conversations. Sama is saying that when you have a controversial opinion, you shouldn't feel so threatened and alienated from society that you must relocate. I'm sure he'd like to hear true arguments against his positions, but that's different than labeling him as evil and trying to enrage people so that he can no longer be respected at all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? According to his logic that pain is collateral damage. And any innovation from the people who would have been productive except for that collateral alienation / harassment is now lost -- and this is a story as old as time in the valley particularly from women and PoC. But his writing indicates that he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic.
  - bthornbury 9y ago
    Perhaps those other people can share their opinion that they feel harrassed and alienated and we can have a discussion on the matter (in some other form than branding the opposing party as a heretic)?
    - kajecounterhack 9y ago
      The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. That is not true, and obviously valid opinions deserve discussion. Sam's essay takes your comment's tack and extrapolates, saying in order for us to never accidentally brand people as heretics we should live in a society that has a higher level of tolerance for shitty things like "gay people are evil." That we should have a higher tolerance for all ideas so we can "discuss" them. But the consequences of "higher tolerance" for harassing and alienating speech is a chilling effect on another section of the population (people who get harassed and alienated). More "freedom" for one group comes at the cost of depriving another.
      - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
        > ...valid opinions deserve discussion. And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss?

solipsism 9y ago

Surely there's room for people to vehemently disagree without being called fragile and "unable to take it".

nl 9y ago
He said that they are literally leaving because people couldn't take arguments against life extension. I think life extension is great, but I think leaving because people disagree with that is close to the definition of "unable to take it".
- bthornbury 9y ago
  Arguments against? Or the social consequences of being on the "wrong" side of a controversial argument? I'd assert the latter...
  - nl 9y ago
    I’m not sure that matters? Or rather, the specifics of the controversial argument matter a lot. If someone is unable to find people who agree that helping people live longer then perhaps there is something else going on, because that doesn’t seem a hard argument to make. OTOH, if they are making the argument that Hitler was correct, then yes I would unashamedly hope there are social consequences.

nv-vn 9y ago

It's not about criticism. It's about harassment and smear campaigns. The thing is, most people want criticism because they want to have conversations. Sama is saying that when you have a controversial opinion, you shouldn't feel so threatened and alienated from society that you must relocate. I'm sure he'd like to hear true arguments against his positions, but that's different than labeling him as evil and trying to enrage people so that he can no longer be respected at all.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kajecounterhack 9y ago
What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? According to his logic that pain is collateral damage. And any innovation from the people who would have been productive except for that collateral alienation / harassment is now lost -- and this is a story as old as time in the valley particularly from women and PoC. But his writing indicates that he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic.
- bthornbury 9y ago
  Perhaps those other people can share their opinion that they feel harrassed and alienated and we can have a discussion on the matter (in some other form than branding the opposing party as a heretic)?
  - kajecounterhack 9y ago
    The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. That is not true, and obviously valid opinions deserve discussion. Sam's essay takes your comment's tack and extrapolates, saying in order for us to never accidentally brand people as heretics we should live in a society that has a higher level of tolerance for shitty things like "gay people are evil." That we should have a higher tolerance for all ideas so we can "discuss" them. But the consequences of "higher tolerance" for harassing and alienating speech is a chilling effect on another section of the population (people who get harassed and alienated). More "freedom" for one group comes at the cost of depriving another.
    - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
      > ...valid opinions deserve discussion. And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss?