12 ms·

A Clarification

jwilk 9y ago
Original post on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093
- minimaxir 9y ago
  And the counterargument to the original post on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614
huac 9y ago
Again, Sam misses the point - saying today that 'gay people shouldn't have rights' is not the same as saying 'gay people should have rights' 20 years ago (or honestly probably even 5-10 years ago). Arguing to take rights away from people is in no way equivalent to arguing to treat people equally. Controversy is not a measure of worth or consideration. Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people. But homophobic ideas can and do hurt gay people.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  I do not get the impression, from the previous post nor this one, that Sam is unaware of the distinction between the impact of/consequences of/hurt caused by one controversial stance 50 years ago ("gay people should have rights") and the opposite one today ("gay people shouldn't have rights"). If this distinction is something he understands (which, personally, I believe he does but hey, I could be wrong), could it be that it's not him missing the point?
  - matchu 9y ago
    Sam's argument seems to be that one of our major social problems is that we socially disallow controversial ideas, which makes him feel uncomfortable expressing himself and stifles social progress. Therefore, we should start allowing controversial ideas. The parent comment asserts that Sam's premise is wrong: ideas aren't being rejected for their controversy, but rather for their harmfulness. Saying that "it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people" (see his previous post) implicitly draws a false equivalence between civil rights advocacy and bigotry as fair-game "controversial" ideas.
- interfixus 9y ago
  > LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people Opinion. Up for discussion.
  - charonn0 9y ago
    What are some counter-arguments to this opinion?
    - interfixus 9y ago
      Your subtext presumably being that if I cannot, off the top of my head, come up with examples of such arguments, my point is invalid. I do not need any such examples. The point is that any opinion should be up for debate. Otherwise you'll never have your answer.
      - charonn0 9y ago
        No, my intention was to learn why you believe what you believe and then perhaps challenge those beliefs. You know... a debate.
        interfixus 9y ago
        I have not - to the best of my knowledge - stated any opinion, except that debate should always be an option. I do hold opinions on the postmodern x-gender nonsense, but have no illusion that expressing them on HN will have me avalanced out of existence.
        interfixus 9y ago
        Should have been: ... will not have me avalanched out of existence.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      See my other comment. (Pretty much all rights in general negatively affect some other people, so this should not be surprising.)
- jrs95 9y ago
  You're missing the point he's trying to make. He obviously understands this. He's just saying that freedom of speech should actually exist. As soon as you start adding subjective exceptions, you've killed it.
- darawk 9y ago
  No, you are missing the point. The moral history of the world does not terminate in the present. You are basically arguing that the modern consensus is the only acceptable opinion to hold. 50 years ago the modern consensus was that gays should not have rights. The person filling your shoes then would have said "It's unacceptable to discuss giving Gay's rights, we all know it's wrong and abominable, anyone with that opinion should be driven from their post".
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  > Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. But only people? Not animals? How do you feel about thinking, feeling beings being raised through a life of torture only to be slaughtered so that people can experience some mouth pleasure for a few moments? How about consideration for people whose ideas don't completely align with yours? Are you really so certain that the mainstream beliefs are, for the first time in history, unassailable? Engage the point rather than saying he misses it.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  There's an underlying issue here, which is that people come at these statements with different fundamental ideas of what is true and what are the likely consequences of an action. Few people would actively support denying rights to other people for zero reason. Most of the time, when they believe that rights should be denied, it's because they believe that allowing those rights would trample on the rights of other people in a significant way. A significant fraction of America believes that allowing gay people to marry means that God will deny them entrance to the kingdom of Heaven when they die. I think this belief isn't just false, it's ridiculous - there is no God, there is no Heaven, and even if there were, He wouldn't be so petty as to deny entrance just because you supported other people having the same rights as you to get married. But if you take this premise as given, then homophobia and all of the backlash against LGBTQ people makes a lot more sense. Which would you rather have, eternal damnation for your entire society or a few deviants being able to live their lives with each other? And I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist and he doesn't hate gay people - I may think the ideas are ridiculous, but people who hold those ideas think that my heresy is ridiculous (and worse, dangerous - I'm certainly going to bring damnation upon myself, and probably upon those people who tolerate me). I've been told that I'm going to hell by certain more devout relatives, after all. I think that this is the sense in which Sam thinks we should be tolerant. We need to be open to other conceptions of what is true, not necessarily what is good (and we need to learn to separate the two of them in our minds so that we can entertain different possible ideas of what is true without automatically endorsing or condemning them). Less than a century ago, it was taken as given within the Western world that God exists and the Bible is His literal word. Ideas that have challenged anything in it - like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's more than 6000 years old - have met a violent reaction throughout history. What other ridiculous things do we believe today will be reexamined tomorrow, and how will we ever examine them if we can't countenance the idea that we might be wrong?
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Saying they shouldn't have rights (what rights?) is different from plenty of derogatory things you could say about gays or the gay community, or trans people. And LGBT "rights" by some people's definitions do negatively hurt straight people. For example, some want to force hospitals to perform operations on people, and others want to make rules about bathroom use on private or public property. The right of gays to engage in sexual activities has greatly increased promiscuous straight people's STD risk. Your statement is both untrue and it's an idea that hurts straight people. I guess I'm supposed to think you should be ostracized from society for expressing it.
frabbit 9y ago
Wait what? San Francisco has introduced legislation outlawing the discussion of ideas? Or did someone just post something nasty about the author when he posted something they found nasty? Nothing to see here except someone having the vapors over being told their ideas are shit.
- api 9y ago
  People keep confusing extreme disapproval of ideas with censorship. If you say "the Holocaust didn't happen!" and people decide that they don't want to be your friend anymore and private organizations like corporations and universities decide to no-platform you, that's not censorship. That's just people exercising their free choice en masse. There are some ideas that are justifiably extremely unpopular: racism, extreme religious bigotry, advocacy of genocide or apology for such, etc.
  - frabbit 9y ago
    Exactly. But to be clear, I actually am completely against e.g. Hate Speech laws and while I might support students deciding that they do not want a holocaust denier on their campus I am against handing that decision over to the university corporation.
    - api 9y ago
      That's my position as well. People and private organizations are free to ignore or exclude speech but it should never be criminalized.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      How would students remove the denier? Lynch mob? I don't think your idea of "let individual groups of people angry enough to act handle it instead of authorities acting on calmly predetermined rules" scales particularly well or elegantly.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  according to the original article it wasn't even people telling Sam he's an idiot/asshole. He was just in Beijing being fawned over and thought it would be nice if he was in SF too.
perfmode 9y ago
In my opinion, I think it is important that we maintain a belief that it is possible to distinguish between progressive controversial ideas and regressive ones. Am I placing too much faith in reason? An issue I take with Sam's initial argument is that it seemed to imply that it is not possible to tell the progressive and regressive apart.
- jrs95 9y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that freedom of speech should exist absolutely regardless. Weakening freedom of speech to attack regressive ideas still weakens freedom of speech.
  - charonn0 9y ago
    Freedom of speech hasn't been weakened, though.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      As a legal right, no. As a culture, it absolutely has. YouTube has demonetized benign conservative content while still having a ton of creepy pedo shit, for example.
      - charonn0 9y ago
        There is so much more to our culture than Youtube comments, though.
  - perfmode 9y ago
    What is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?
    - l_t 9y ago
      If we can distinguish "progressive" and "regressive" ideas through reason, that can only happen with an open discussion that gives both sides' advocates equal, fair treatment. If an idea is universally considered regressive, then usually it doesn't come up. Ideas that people are discussing are usually ones where it's not completely clear yet, to everyone, whether it is a good idea or not. In that case, allowing both sides fair advocacy is critical to making a fair decision.
QAPereo 9y ago
Ah the pain and peril of being too wealthy for someone to take you aside and tell you to just stop digging.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  The parent comment is a good representative of the non-communication sort of dismissive attack which Sam and others are rebelling against. At a meta level it ignores the question of "Why is Sam pursuing this conversation?" (the stop digging part which refers to the adage, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.") which implies that Sam is in a hole of his own making, in which 'hole' is considered a bad thing. Coupled with the "too wealthy for someone to take you aside" which implies either that no one would risk offending Sam by disagreeing with him like the parent does, or that those who associate with Sam (and associates were clearly targeted in the various twitter tirades) Combined, this is exactly the sort of dismissive comment that seeks to shut down conversation rather than encourage it. Overall I see so little respect, and so much vitriol, that I wonder if maybe people are parodying the exact sort of behavior that Sam is complaining about or if they even recognize their own patterns. When someone says something that sounds to the listener as wrong or stupid or elitist or any number of negative things, is that the speaker's issue or the listener's issue? And when the listener is dismissive they unilaterally give up their opportunity to understand do they not? After Charlottesville there were a number of journalists that went out and talked with people in various groups who were espousing racist points of view. What I found interesting was that of all the people they talked with and I got a chance to see or read, only two 'types' seemed to be there, one was a follower type person who was feeling threatened in their own life and had externalized that fear/threat as as anger/hate against an identifiable group. And the other were the leader type people who really didn't seem to be invested on way or the other but they could use that fear to get people to do things that advanced their own agenda of acquiring power. There was an article on HN recently that humans are wired to think in Us vs Them modalities. No doubt it helped us survive in tribes, but we have to set that aside if we want to address the core of the problem, and sometimes if we even want to know what the problem really is! It is very enlightening to hear the stories of "former" racists for this reason. Many that I have heard started with someone listening to the rhetoric of an agitator 'leader type' person who would craft a narrative that this future follower's problems were the result of these 'others'. And call upon their membership in the group of 'Us' to help stop the influence of 'Them'. We see this pattern raging rampant in national discourse and local discourse, whether it is races, political party, political ideology, or wealth disparity. And too often that rhetoric is portrayed as the conversation but it isn't. It is the emotion, it is not the issue. People who are unable to move ahead in their personal economic growth see people who appear to be effortlessly becoming wealthier and the emotion is to hate those people. The issue is structural barriers that maintain high levels of wealth inequality. People who feel their financial security is under attack by the perception that those who would take it from them would give it to people unwilling to work as hard as they do. People use strong emotions to shut down conversations, sometimes intentionally and some times not, but the outcome is the same. Something along "We don't talk about that because it just gets everyone all upset." And I think that is exactly what Sam was trying to say, which was "getting everyone all upset" is not a useful reason for not talking about a particular topic. You need to look that emotion as a signal that the topic is important. If you ignore these important topics they fester and they explode. Whether it is in divorce or in elections where the very fabric of the government is challenged to respond. And by talking about the topic, you can search for the issue behind the emotion and address it.
baxtr 9y ago
This time, at least, he lists some specific examples of topics he thinks others don't want discussed. An improvement over the last post
rhapsodic 9y ago
Two questions, for anyone that cares engage in free discussion of ideas: If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Christians, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it? If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Muslims, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it?
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Context matters and specifics matter. There aren't a lot of useful conclusions we can come to from willfully abstract discussions of messy realities.
  - throwaway0255 9y ago
    I disagree. The only variable he changed between the two options was the religion involved, so we can have that discussion. Disparaging Christianity would be mostly acceptable and would receive a warning at most. I've personally witnessed this, no problems. I think disparaging Islam would instantly earn you a reputation that you would never shake during your entire time at the company, you would 100% receive a warning at the very least, and depending on your coworkers, might be outright fired. If you weren't fired, you'd live the rest of your days at the company as a pariah. That all seems self-evident to me, and I find that pretty interesting. Why is discussing it off-limits?
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      "in general" covers all changes of all variables.
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        >"in general" covers all changes of all variables. What I meant when I wrote "in general" was "as a group." For example, Anil Dash, CEO of Fog Creek Software, makes a blanket statement about Christians in this tweet: https://twitter.com/anildash/status/928815535206424576 https://twitter.com/anildash/status/928815535206424576 "No other religion’s followers in America insist on every public official being of their faith." That is a statement, not about a specific individual or group of Christians, but Christians in general. And it's offensive and ridiculous. I know many Christians, but not one of whom for which that statement holds true. Well, I suppose it could be true for some, but most, I know for a fact, it's not. It's like someone saying "Jews are cheap." It's a blanket statement that I think is offensive and ridiculous. However, I've had Jewish relatives who were, in fact, the cheapest people I've ever known, beyond caricature, and I said that about them, in particular, on more than one occasion.
twobyfour 9y ago
Still disagree vehemently. One "brilliant jerk" who isn't shy about saying that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "Jews kill and eat babies" or "all muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't allow them in the country" in an environment that is tolerant to his views can make an environment hostile for 50 non-jerks whom you'll never have a chance to discover are brilliant. If you try to tell me I have an obligation for the sake of "progress" to tolerate people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about, I will laugh in your face and ask you (politely, the first time) to get out of my place of work.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  You chose easy examples. What about the harder ones?
  - fao_ 9y ago
    You obviously have some in mind, how about suggesting them?
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      I actually don't have any in mind. I just find it less helpful to focus on the easier examples. In general, I'm more interested in the underlying dynamics, as well as the processes we use to determine what is morally acceptable or not. I think that looking at the more complex issues and at the ways in which the different viewpoints evolve over time shines more light on these important fundamental aspects.
    - pdpi 9y ago
      A really popular (or rather unpopular) one is that women and men are differently capable. Even with all the caveats in the world (that different means neither better nor worse, that this doesn’t make hiring or salary discrimination ok, etc etc), you’re likely to get in trouble because of it.
      - 9y ago
alexryan 9y ago
We are survival machines for genes who evolved brains in order to predict which moves will improve the probability of the survival of our genes. The survival machines who evolve the better predictive models fastest are the ones who win. The best way that I know how to evolve my predictive model quickly is to argue with those who hold views that are different than my own. In the majority of these cases, both parties benefit by improving their predictive models. I’m not sure why, but hacker news seems to filter out a lot of unpopular opinions. This slows the rate by which we evolve our predictive models. This slows the rate of innovation. IMHO this leaves us all poorer both individually and collectively.
- viewtransform 9y ago
  Humans progress involves consigning some models to the trashcan of history.
neom 9y ago
I get confused reading this because I keep finding it difficult to reconcile the reasoning and logic between attitude, demeanor, and intellect.
- taneq 9y ago
  What? The entire article is couched in terms of "people saying controversial things." > I'm a straight white man so I have no clue really OK, stop and have a think about what you're saying. Because "you're a [sexual preference][skin colour][gender]" you "have no clue really"? Do you honestly have an issue with the original article and yet somehow think that saying stuff like this is OK? Or worse, that it's OK if you're talking about a specific preference, skin colour, or gender? Edit: Updated parent post is much less incendiary and so I retract my vitriol. Leaving my original response here for reference.
  - neom 9y ago
    I edited my original post to just my thought, not my feelings (to your point).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JepZ 9y ago
I bet there is a positive correlation between being intelligent and being open minded.
curyous 9y ago
Political correctness is used to persecute and bully people. I'm surprised that many don't see it.
- charonn0 9y ago
  How so? Physical violence? Criminal charges?
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    Once a year some body gets fired, twice a year some body gets maligned on twitter. This is considered much worse than the times some one gets fired due to bigotry or murdered due to bigotry.
    - slededit 9y ago
      That it has become acceptable is seen as a regression of society. We should be eliminating bullying not debating who the victim should be today.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        you're debating who the victim should be. I am (via sarcasm) stating that being murdered is worse than being fired and if Side A's speech ends in firing and Side B's speech end in 11 black people in in a church being murdered: I'm Side A All-Day-Every-Day.
        slededit 9y ago
        I don't see how I'm debating who the victim should be unless you've mistaken me for somebody else. In any case murder vs bully is a false dichotomy.
darawk 9y ago
I think there's a subtle parse here that's being missed. There's an important difference between being a jerk and having a reasonably articulated controversial opinion that you would like to discuss dispassionately and intellectually. Just to take Altman's example, a jerk might say "I hate those dirty homosexuals, they're ruining marriage for us good heterosexuals Christians". A reasonably articulated opinion might be "What are the social consequences of prevalent homosexuality? Is it possible that some of them are negative? Why is it that the pre-modern civilizations that were hyper-tolerant of homosexuality died out (greece, rome) and were replaced by comparatively intolerant ones?" IMO the former is not ok. That is venom, and it is unhelpful and should absolutely get you cast out of your job. But the latter is an intellectually expressed idea, an idea that is up for debate and the answer to which may be interesting/consequential. In a society that values technological progress, the latter form must always be acceptable. All ideas must always be open for discussion in that manner. That does not mean that we should tolerate venom, discrimination, or harassment, however.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  > IMO the latter is not ok. Edit suggestion: I think you meant that the first is not ok.
  - darawk 9y ago
    Oh, totally, you're right. Thanks.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Homosexuality is a scientific fact -- people don't choose it like they do a flavor of ice cream. In this light, how do we reconcile the position that homosexuals should have less rights with the broadly accepted idea of basic human rights? Edit: To be clear, I'm a strong supporter of free speech -- I think it is one of our most important cultural principles. It just seems to me that the gay rights issue is very clear cut and incredibly personal. Thus, its opponents receive very strong feedback, which isn't that surprising. I do think calm discussion with hard-hitting questions is the best way to address offensive beliefs, but I also realize there isn't always time for that.
freyir 9y ago
Statement: "This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics." Clarification: "I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress." I can see how people might have misunderstood.
stevenj 9y ago
I may get downvoted for saying this but, anecdotally, people today seem way more sensitive and emotional about other people's viewpoints and actions, especially when they disagree with them. Growing up, it was much easier to have conversations of differing opinions because people not only listened more, but they also listened better. (Perhaps that's in part due to the unique sense of curiosity that kids have.) Today, it commonly feels like conversations involve hearing aids that have been turned off completely. Einstein is quoted as half-jokingly saying that the greatest force in the universe is compound interest. I think it's emotions.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  People who had no voice have it now; people were angry and offended before, but lacked the freedom to tell you.
  - Buldak 9y ago
    I agree. That is not to say that everyone getting upset nowadays is necessarily in the right. But I think what many people remember as calmer, more reasonable discussions of yesteryear are largely a reflection of greater hegemony.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      More voices also means more noise, but I think this is a transitional period, and the noise will find its level again. The value of giving people a franchise based on what they have to say has to start somehwere, and it’s an admittedly rough start. I feel like too often the value of the underlying process is ignored in favor of obsessive complaining sbout reasonable and expected cultural growing pains.
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        Ah yes, the growing pains of ruining people's lives for having the wrong opinions. Just reasonable growing pains!
blackholesRhot 9y ago
One favorable interpretation is that he’s trying to say something similar to what Richard Muller said here https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkeley-protest-against-Milo-Yiannopoulos-Feb-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkele... In the 60s and 70s UC Berkeley used to let controversial speakers present. The audience would listen patiently. And then take turns asking questions trying to catch the racist / bigot / Nazi / homophobe / whatever in the midst of logical failures. Now we just protest and shut down ideas via claims of political correctness. It’s not nearly as effective.
- candiodari 9y ago
  It's incredibly absurd how this discussion is going in this site. People are literally defending the idea that preventing currently unpopular ideas from finding expression, if necessary violently (and certainly through physical obstructions, which is of course violence), is moral and even good. The obvious problems are, of course, left without any solution. 1) if this idea had been applied as little as 20 years ago, today's society would have been violently repressed. 2) we are not "right" on everything (on the moral front, and outside). We must allow for evolution of our opinions because of changes in our understanding, and because of changes in the real world surrounding us that our morality just doesn't consider at the moment. 3) the potential for abuse of this attitude is incredibly huge. Generally we should consider that our attitude is right now violently repressing the morality of society as little as 20 years from now. We will fail in that, and will do a lot of damage in the process. It is as simple as that. We should welcome speakers and friends and colleagues from wildly different viewpoints and environments and engage with them. Clearly, that's the way forward.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Some of these ideas aren't "unpopular", they're answered. They're "we had a world war about this"-answered.
zerostar07 9y ago
smart man goes to china, sees something he likes . comes back and apologizes for liking it to appease his crowd. not a very smart man.
nickpp 9y ago
Where do you draw the line between the jerk and his freedom of speech and the brilliant genius spouting unpopular, ahead of their time, ideas. How do you make the difference? If we accept that we can’t, shall we treat them all as jerks and deman a clean, PC world or shall we accept anything at all in the name of protecting freedom of speech?
javajosh 9y ago
Sam, I think the best clarification would be a big long list of examples of what you mean. For example take this list of claims: 1. Women are inferior. 2. Gays are evil. 3. Whites are greedy. 4. Children are valid sex objects. 5. Hitler wasn't all bad. 6. vi is the best editor 7. Drug users should be killed. 8. Islam is not compatible with western democracy. ... Immediately on writing this I make a distinction on "ethically falsifiable". Some statements just aren't clear (1,2,3). The ethically falsifiable ones (4,5,7,8) are closest to what you're talking about, I think. If you can control your rising gorge then you could have a rational debate about them! The debate would be about connecting some set of principles to the claim. "Ethical falsifiability" then means that a claim is well-formed enough that a connection to some set of concrete principles can be made. I also notice that I've instinctively not introduced "scientifically falsifiable" statements, such as these: 1. Global warming is real. 2. Vaccinations cause autism. 3. The earth is flat 4. Evolution is wrong 5. Science is a scam. 6. Putin helped Trump get elected. 7. Light is a wave in luminferous ether. ... To me, these claims are just not that interesting (the one exception is 5, a meta-assertion about the state of academic scientific inquiry itself). It would take a person with extraordinary credentials to get me to start talking about any of these.
throwaway0255 9y ago
He made his original point pretty clearly in my opinion. As a result of his original post (which was totally harmless and not even slightly controversial), he's forced to write this mea culpa to avoid being labeled a heretic (which is literally the problem he's discussing in his original post), and has to end it with a dig at Donald Trump as if to say to the people threatening him with claims of heresy: "Hey guys, see, I'm on your side. Isn't Donald Trump the worst?" The irony is just incredible. Nice try Sam, but you made the mistake of trying to reason with these people. You're not a person making arguments; to the people you're talking about in that original post, you're merely an embodiment of whatever ideology they think you're representing at the time. Your critics aren't even concerned with what they think as individuals, they're purely concerned with the aggregate of what their contacts on social media will pretend to think publicly. Trying to debate them on an individual or intellectual level seems pointless, especially through any kind of broadcast medium. Your ideas will get through to some, but only the response labeling you a heretic will be shared. There are jokes people will laugh at when they're in a dark room, but if the lights are on and their family is watching, they will shake their head disapprovingly instead. Politics is the joke, and social media is the light and family in that room.
- javajosh 9y ago
  I agree with Sam's point, but disagree that he made it clearly. The best thing he could do is make a list of examples. My other comment in this thread explains more thoroughly what I mean by that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941597
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Thing is: nobody threatened to murder him, no one called for a boycott of Y Combinator. Nobody did anything except disagree with him. Somehow an insignificant fraction of humanity disagreeing with him was too much for him to deal with though.
  - whamlastxmas 9y ago
    It is probably difficult to voice an unpopular opinion and have it be met with so much derision by people whose opinions on business matters you respect so deeply. Unfortunately it is quite common for a pragmatic and reasonable professionals to have less than reasonable personal beliefs. Sam cares about what people think about him which is healthy and separates him from the sociopaths of the world.
oceanghost 9y ago
Before startups, there was this concept of "professionalism". The core idea of which was, you would be able to accomplish your goals in a wide variety of adverse conditions.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
> I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress. Well, Sam, you didn't say that. Rather, the totalitarian left, exactly who the article was criticizing, sensed heresy and pounced, without any goodwill or thoughtfulness. They did exactly what you implied they would do, and now you are apologizing for them doing it. 2017, everybody.
- api 9y ago
  We seem to have a totalitarian left that wants an intellectual monoculture vs. a totalitarian right that wants an ethnic and cultural monoculture. I've been rediscovering libertarian ideas lately and realizing in the process just how profoundly and deeply the discourse has shifted toward authoritarianism across the whole political spectrum over the last 15 years. I really blame 9/11. The West lost its collective mind after that event and still has not recovered. Apparently terrorism works. Economics is probably the other factor. Stocks are up but the street has not recovered. Totalitarian ideas always grow when people feel economically stressed. I think it might even be instinct, sort of like how chimps get aggressive and raid when under stress. Totalitarianism is about preparing to raid the neighboring tribe.
- marcelluspye 9y ago
  "This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics." He literally did say that. Maybe that's not what he meant, and the gist of what he was saying was correct, but he said what he said. But go ahead and vilify the people who took issue with what reads essentially like a utilitarian apology for homophobia.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Original post on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093

minimaxir 9y ago
And the counterargument to the original post on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614

huac 9y ago

Again, Sam misses the point - saying today that 'gay people shouldn't have rights' is not the same as saying 'gay people should have rights' 20 years ago (or honestly probably even 5-10 years ago). Arguing to take rights away from people is in no way equivalent to arguing to treat people equally. Controversy is not a measure of worth or consideration. Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people. But homophobic ideas can and do hurt gay people.

scrollaway 9y ago
I do not get the impression, from the previous post nor this one, that Sam is unaware of the distinction between the impact of/consequences of/hurt caused by one controversial stance 50 years ago ("gay people should have rights") and the opposite one today ("gay people shouldn't have rights"). If this distinction is something he understands (which, personally, I believe he does but hey, I could be wrong), could it be that it's not him missing the point?
- matchu 9y ago
  Sam's argument seems to be that one of our major social problems is that we socially disallow controversial ideas, which makes him feel uncomfortable expressing himself and stifles social progress. Therefore, we should start allowing controversial ideas. The parent comment asserts that Sam's premise is wrong: ideas aren't being rejected for their controversy, but rather for their harmfulness. Saying that "it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people" (see his previous post) implicitly draws a false equivalence between civil rights advocacy and bigotry as fair-game "controversial" ideas.
interfixus 9y ago
> LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people Opinion. Up for discussion.
- charonn0 9y ago
  What are some counter-arguments to this opinion?
  - interfixus 9y ago
    Your subtext presumably being that if I cannot, off the top of my head, come up with examples of such arguments, my point is invalid. I do not need any such examples. The point is that any opinion should be up for debate. Otherwise you'll never have your answer.
    - charonn0 9y ago
      No, my intention was to learn why you believe what you believe and then perhaps challenge those beliefs. You know... a debate.
      - interfixus 9y ago
        I have not - to the best of my knowledge - stated any opinion, except that debate should always be an option. I do hold opinions on the postmodern x-gender nonsense, but have no illusion that expressing them on HN will have me avalanced out of existence.
        interfixus 9y ago
        Should have been: ... will not have me avalanched out of existence.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    See my other comment. (Pretty much all rights in general negatively affect some other people, so this should not be surprising.)
jrs95 9y ago
You're missing the point he's trying to make. He obviously understands this. He's just saying that freedom of speech should actually exist. As soon as you start adding subjective exceptions, you've killed it.
darawk 9y ago
No, you are missing the point. The moral history of the world does not terminate in the present. You are basically arguing that the modern consensus is the only acceptable opinion to hold. 50 years ago the modern consensus was that gays should not have rights. The person filling your shoes then would have said "It's unacceptable to discuss giving Gay's rights, we all know it's wrong and abominable, anyone with that opinion should be driven from their post".
whatyoucantsay 9y ago
> Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. But only people? Not animals? How do you feel about thinking, feeling beings being raised through a life of torture only to be slaughtered so that people can experience some mouth pleasure for a few moments? How about consideration for people whose ideas don't completely align with yours? Are you really so certain that the mainstream beliefs are, for the first time in history, unassailable? Engage the point rather than saying he misses it.
nostrademons 9y ago
There's an underlying issue here, which is that people come at these statements with different fundamental ideas of what is true and what are the likely consequences of an action. Few people would actively support denying rights to other people for zero reason. Most of the time, when they believe that rights should be denied, it's because they believe that allowing those rights would trample on the rights of other people in a significant way. A significant fraction of America believes that allowing gay people to marry means that God will deny them entrance to the kingdom of Heaven when they die. I think this belief isn't just false, it's ridiculous - there is no God, there is no Heaven, and even if there were, He wouldn't be so petty as to deny entrance just because you supported other people having the same rights as you to get married. But if you take this premise as given, then homophobia and all of the backlash against LGBTQ people makes a lot more sense. Which would you rather have, eternal damnation for your entire society or a few deviants being able to live their lives with each other? And I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist and he doesn't hate gay people - I may think the ideas are ridiculous, but people who hold those ideas think that my heresy is ridiculous (and worse, dangerous - I'm certainly going to bring damnation upon myself, and probably upon those people who tolerate me). I've been told that I'm going to hell by certain more devout relatives, after all. I think that this is the sense in which Sam thinks we should be tolerant. We need to be open to other conceptions of what is true, not necessarily what is good (and we need to learn to separate the two of them in our minds so that we can entertain different possible ideas of what is true without automatically endorsing or condemning them). Less than a century ago, it was taken as given within the Western world that God exists and the Bible is His literal word. Ideas that have challenged anything in it - like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's more than 6000 years old - have met a violent reaction throughout history. What other ridiculous things do we believe today will be reexamined tomorrow, and how will we ever examine them if we can't countenance the idea that we might be wrong?
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Saying they shouldn't have rights (what rights?) is different from plenty of derogatory things you could say about gays or the gay community, or trans people. And LGBT "rights" by some people's definitions do negatively hurt straight people. For example, some want to force hospitals to perform operations on people, and others want to make rules about bathroom use on private or public property. The right of gays to engage in sexual activities has greatly increased promiscuous straight people's STD risk. Your statement is both untrue and it's an idea that hurts straight people. I guess I'm supposed to think you should be ostracized from society for expressing it.

frabbit 9y ago

Wait what? San Francisco has introduced legislation outlawing the discussion of ideas? Or did someone just post something nasty about the author when he posted something they found nasty? Nothing to see here except someone having the vapors over being told their ideas are shit.

api 9y ago
People keep confusing extreme disapproval of ideas with censorship. If you say "the Holocaust didn't happen!" and people decide that they don't want to be your friend anymore and private organizations like corporations and universities decide to no-platform you, that's not censorship. That's just people exercising their free choice en masse. There are some ideas that are justifiably extremely unpopular: racism, extreme religious bigotry, advocacy of genocide or apology for such, etc.
- frabbit 9y ago
  Exactly. But to be clear, I actually am completely against e.g. Hate Speech laws and while I might support students deciding that they do not want a holocaust denier on their campus I am against handing that decision over to the university corporation.
  - api 9y ago
    That's my position as well. People and private organizations are free to ignore or exclude speech but it should never be criminalized.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    How would students remove the denier? Lynch mob? I don't think your idea of "let individual groups of people angry enough to act handle it instead of authorities acting on calmly predetermined rules" scales particularly well or elegantly.
Avshalom 9y ago
according to the original article it wasn't even people telling Sam he's an idiot/asshole. He was just in Beijing being fawned over and thought it would be nice if he was in SF too.

perfmode 9y ago

In my opinion, I think it is important that we maintain a belief that it is possible to distinguish between progressive controversial ideas and regressive ones. Am I placing too much faith in reason? An issue I take with Sam's initial argument is that it seemed to imply that it is not possible to tell the progressive and regressive apart.

jrs95 9y ago
That's not the point. The point is that freedom of speech should exist absolutely regardless. Weakening freedom of speech to attack regressive ideas still weakens freedom of speech.
- charonn0 9y ago
  Freedom of speech hasn't been weakened, though.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    As a legal right, no. As a culture, it absolutely has. YouTube has demonetized benign conservative content while still having a ton of creepy pedo shit, for example.
    - charonn0 9y ago
      There is so much more to our culture than Youtube comments, though.
- perfmode 9y ago
  What is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?
  - l_t 9y ago
    If we can distinguish "progressive" and "regressive" ideas through reason, that can only happen with an open discussion that gives both sides' advocates equal, fair treatment. If an idea is universally considered regressive, then usually it doesn't come up. Ideas that people are discussing are usually ones where it's not completely clear yet, to everyone, whether it is a good idea or not. In that case, allowing both sides fair advocacy is critical to making a fair decision.

QAPereo 9y ago

Ah the pain and peril of being too wealthy for someone to take you aside and tell you to just stop digging.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
The parent comment is a good representative of the non-communication sort of dismissive attack which Sam and others are rebelling against. At a meta level it ignores the question of "Why is Sam pursuing this conversation?" (the stop digging part which refers to the adage, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.") which implies that Sam is in a hole of his own making, in which 'hole' is considered a bad thing. Coupled with the "too wealthy for someone to take you aside" which implies either that no one would risk offending Sam by disagreeing with him like the parent does, or that those who associate with Sam (and associates were clearly targeted in the various twitter tirades) Combined, this is exactly the sort of dismissive comment that seeks to shut down conversation rather than encourage it. Overall I see so little respect, and so much vitriol, that I wonder if maybe people are parodying the exact sort of behavior that Sam is complaining about or if they even recognize their own patterns. When someone says something that sounds to the listener as wrong or stupid or elitist or any number of negative things, is that the speaker's issue or the listener's issue? And when the listener is dismissive they unilaterally give up their opportunity to understand do they not? After Charlottesville there were a number of journalists that went out and talked with people in various groups who were espousing racist points of view. What I found interesting was that of all the people they talked with and I got a chance to see or read, only two 'types' seemed to be there, one was a follower type person who was feeling threatened in their own life and had externalized that fear/threat as as anger/hate against an identifiable group. And the other were the leader type people who really didn't seem to be invested on way or the other but they could use that fear to get people to do things that advanced their own agenda of acquiring power. There was an article on HN recently that humans are wired to think in Us vs Them modalities. No doubt it helped us survive in tribes, but we have to set that aside if we want to address the core of the problem, and sometimes if we even want to know what the problem really is! It is very enlightening to hear the stories of "former" racists for this reason. Many that I have heard started with someone listening to the rhetoric of an agitator 'leader type' person who would craft a narrative that this future follower's problems were the result of these 'others'. And call upon their membership in the group of 'Us' to help stop the influence of 'Them'. We see this pattern raging rampant in national discourse and local discourse, whether it is races, political party, political ideology, or wealth disparity. And too often that rhetoric is portrayed as the conversation but it isn't. It is the emotion, it is not the issue. People who are unable to move ahead in their personal economic growth see people who appear to be effortlessly becoming wealthier and the emotion is to hate those people. The issue is structural barriers that maintain high levels of wealth inequality. People who feel their financial security is under attack by the perception that those who would take it from them would give it to people unwilling to work as hard as they do. People use strong emotions to shut down conversations, sometimes intentionally and some times not, but the outcome is the same. Something along "We don't talk about that because it just gets everyone all upset." And I think that is exactly what Sam was trying to say, which was "getting everyone all upset" is not a useful reason for not talking about a particular topic. You need to look that emotion as a signal that the topic is important. If you ignore these important topics they fester and they explode. Whether it is in divorce or in elections where the very fabric of the government is challenged to respond. And by talking about the topic, you can search for the issue behind the emotion and address it.

baxtr 9y ago

This time, at least, he lists some specific examples of topics he thinks others don't want discussed. An improvement over the last post

rhapsodic 9y ago

Two questions, for anyone that cares engage in free discussion of ideas: If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Christians, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it? If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Muslims, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it?

Avshalom 9y ago
Context matters and specifics matter. There aren't a lot of useful conclusions we can come to from willfully abstract discussions of messy realities.
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  I disagree. The only variable he changed between the two options was the religion involved, so we can have that discussion. Disparaging Christianity would be mostly acceptable and would receive a warning at most. I've personally witnessed this, no problems. I think disparaging Islam would instantly earn you a reputation that you would never shake during your entire time at the company, you would 100% receive a warning at the very least, and depending on your coworkers, might be outright fired. If you weren't fired, you'd live the rest of your days at the company as a pariah. That all seems self-evident to me, and I find that pretty interesting. Why is discussing it off-limits?
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    "in general" covers all changes of all variables.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >"in general" covers all changes of all variables. What I meant when I wrote "in general" was "as a group." For example, Anil Dash, CEO of Fog Creek Software, makes a blanket statement about Christians in this tweet: https://twitter.com/anildash/status/928815535206424576 https://twitter.com/anildash/status/928815535206424576 "No other religion’s followers in America insist on every public official being of their faith." That is a statement, not about a specific individual or group of Christians, but Christians in general. And it's offensive and ridiculous. I know many Christians, but not one of whom for which that statement holds true. Well, I suppose it could be true for some, but most, I know for a fact, it's not. It's like someone saying "Jews are cheap." It's a blanket statement that I think is offensive and ridiculous. However, I've had Jewish relatives who were, in fact, the cheapest people I've ever known, beyond caricature, and I said that about them, in particular, on more than one occasion.

twobyfour 9y ago

Still disagree vehemently. One "brilliant jerk" who isn't shy about saying that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "Jews kill and eat babies" or "all muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't allow them in the country" in an environment that is tolerant to his views can make an environment hostile for 50 non-jerks whom you'll never have a chance to discover are brilliant. If you try to tell me I have an obligation for the sake of "progress" to tolerate people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about, I will laugh in your face and ask you (politely, the first time) to get out of my place of work.

dwaltrip 9y ago
You chose easy examples. What about the harder ones?
- fao_ 9y ago
  You obviously have some in mind, how about suggesting them?
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    I actually don't have any in mind. I just find it less helpful to focus on the easier examples. In general, I'm more interested in the underlying dynamics, as well as the processes we use to determine what is morally acceptable or not. I think that looking at the more complex issues and at the ways in which the different viewpoints evolve over time shines more light on these important fundamental aspects.
  - pdpi 9y ago
    A really popular (or rather unpopular) one is that women and men are differently capable. Even with all the caveats in the world (that different means neither better nor worse, that this doesn’t make hiring or salary discrimination ok, etc etc), you’re likely to get in trouble because of it.
    - 9y ago

alexryan 9y ago

We are survival machines for genes who evolved brains in order to predict which moves will improve the probability of the survival of our genes. The survival machines who evolve the better predictive models fastest are the ones who win. The best way that I know how to evolve my predictive model quickly is to argue with those who hold views that are different than my own. In the majority of these cases, both parties benefit by improving their predictive models. I’m not sure why, but hacker news seems to filter out a lot of unpopular opinions. This slows the rate by which we evolve our predictive models. This slows the rate of innovation. IMHO this leaves us all poorer both individually and collectively.

viewtransform 9y ago
Humans progress involves consigning some models to the trashcan of history.

neom 9y ago

I get confused reading this because I keep finding it difficult to reconcile the reasoning and logic between attitude, demeanor, and intellect.

taneq 9y ago
What? The entire article is couched in terms of "people saying controversial things." > I'm a straight white man so I have no clue really OK, stop and have a think about what you're saying. Because "you're a [sexual preference][skin colour][gender]" you "have no clue really"? Do you honestly have an issue with the original article and yet somehow think that saying stuff like this is OK? Or worse, that it's OK if you're talking about a specific preference, skin colour, or gender? Edit: Updated parent post is much less incendiary and so I retract my vitriol. Leaving my original response here for reference.
- neom 9y ago
  I edited my original post to just my thought, not my feelings (to your point).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JepZ 9y ago

I bet there is a positive correlation between being intelligent and being open minded.

curyous 9y ago

Political correctness is used to persecute and bully people. I'm surprised that many don't see it.

charonn0 9y ago
How so? Physical violence? Criminal charges?
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Once a year some body gets fired, twice a year some body gets maligned on twitter. This is considered much worse than the times some one gets fired due to bigotry or murdered due to bigotry.
  - slededit 9y ago
    That it has become acceptable is seen as a regression of society. We should be eliminating bullying not debating who the victim should be today.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      you're debating who the victim should be. I am (via sarcasm) stating that being murdered is worse than being fired and if Side A's speech ends in firing and Side B's speech end in 11 black people in in a church being murdered: I'm Side A All-Day-Every-Day.
      - slededit 9y ago
        I don't see how I'm debating who the victim should be unless you've mistaken me for somebody else. In any case murder vs bully is a false dichotomy.

darawk 9y ago

I think there's a subtle parse here that's being missed. There's an important difference between being a jerk and having a reasonably articulated controversial opinion that you would like to discuss dispassionately and intellectually. Just to take Altman's example, a jerk might say "I hate those dirty homosexuals, they're ruining marriage for us good heterosexuals Christians". A reasonably articulated opinion might be "What are the social consequences of prevalent homosexuality? Is it possible that some of them are negative? Why is it that the pre-modern civilizations that were hyper-tolerant of homosexuality died out (greece, rome) and were replaced by comparatively intolerant ones?" IMO the former is not ok. That is venom, and it is unhelpful and should absolutely get you cast out of your job. But the latter is an intellectually expressed idea, an idea that is up for debate and the answer to which may be interesting/consequential. In a society that values technological progress, the latter form must always be acceptable. All ideas must always be open for discussion in that manner. That does not mean that we should tolerate venom, discrimination, or harassment, however.

skrebbel 9y ago
> IMO the latter is not ok. Edit suggestion: I think you meant that the first is not ok.
- darawk 9y ago
  Oh, totally, you're right. Thanks.
dwaltrip 9y ago
Homosexuality is a scientific fact -- people don't choose it like they do a flavor of ice cream. In this light, how do we reconcile the position that homosexuals should have less rights with the broadly accepted idea of basic human rights? Edit: To be clear, I'm a strong supporter of free speech -- I think it is one of our most important cultural principles. It just seems to me that the gay rights issue is very clear cut and incredibly personal. Thus, its opponents receive very strong feedback, which isn't that surprising. I do think calm discussion with hard-hitting questions is the best way to address offensive beliefs, but I also realize there isn't always time for that.

freyir 9y ago

Statement: "This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics." Clarification: "I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress." I can see how people might have misunderstood.

stevenj 9y ago

I may get downvoted for saying this but, anecdotally, people today seem way more sensitive and emotional about other people's viewpoints and actions, especially when they disagree with them. Growing up, it was much easier to have conversations of differing opinions because people not only listened more, but they also listened better. (Perhaps that's in part due to the unique sense of curiosity that kids have.) Today, it commonly feels like conversations involve hearing aids that have been turned off completely. Einstein is quoted as half-jokingly saying that the greatest force in the universe is compound interest. I think it's emotions.

QAPereo 9y ago
People who had no voice have it now; people were angry and offended before, but lacked the freedom to tell you.
- Buldak 9y ago
  I agree. That is not to say that everyone getting upset nowadays is necessarily in the right. But I think what many people remember as calmer, more reasonable discussions of yesteryear are largely a reflection of greater hegemony.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    More voices also means more noise, but I think this is a transitional period, and the noise will find its level again. The value of giving people a franchise based on what they have to say has to start somehwere, and it’s an admittedly rough start. I feel like too often the value of the underlying process is ignored in favor of obsessive complaining sbout reasonable and expected cultural growing pains.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      Ah yes, the growing pains of ruining people's lives for having the wrong opinions. Just reasonable growing pains!

blackholesRhot 9y ago

One favorable interpretation is that he’s trying to say something similar to what Richard Muller said here https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkeley-protest-against-Milo-Yiannopoulos-Feb-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkele... In the 60s and 70s UC Berkeley used to let controversial speakers present. The audience would listen patiently. And then take turns asking questions trying to catch the racist / bigot / Nazi / homophobe / whatever in the midst of logical failures. Now we just protest and shut down ideas via claims of political correctness. It’s not nearly as effective.

candiodari 9y ago
It's incredibly absurd how this discussion is going in this site. People are literally defending the idea that preventing currently unpopular ideas from finding expression, if necessary violently (and certainly through physical obstructions, which is of course violence), is moral and even good. The obvious problems are, of course, left without any solution. 1) if this idea had been applied as little as 20 years ago, today's society would have been violently repressed. 2) we are not "right" on everything (on the moral front, and outside). We must allow for evolution of our opinions because of changes in our understanding, and because of changes in the real world surrounding us that our morality just doesn't consider at the moment. 3) the potential for abuse of this attitude is incredibly huge. Generally we should consider that our attitude is right now violently repressing the morality of society as little as 20 years from now. We will fail in that, and will do a lot of damage in the process. It is as simple as that. We should welcome speakers and friends and colleagues from wildly different viewpoints and environments and engage with them. Clearly, that's the way forward.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Some of these ideas aren't "unpopular", they're answered. They're "we had a world war about this"-answered.

zerostar07 9y ago

smart man goes to china, sees something he likes . comes back and apologizes for liking it to appease his crowd. not a very smart man.

nickpp 9y ago

Where do you draw the line between the jerk and his freedom of speech and the brilliant genius spouting unpopular, ahead of their time, ideas. How do you make the difference? If we accept that we can’t, shall we treat them all as jerks and deman a clean, PC world or shall we accept anything at all in the name of protecting freedom of speech?

javajosh 9y ago

Sam, I think the best clarification would be a big long list of examples of what you mean. For example take this list of claims: 1. Women are inferior. 2. Gays are evil. 3. Whites are greedy. 4. Children are valid sex objects. 5. Hitler wasn't all bad. 6. vi is the best editor 7. Drug users should be killed. 8. Islam is not compatible with western democracy. ... Immediately on writing this I make a distinction on "ethically falsifiable". Some statements just aren't clear (1,2,3). The ethically falsifiable ones (4,5,7,8) are closest to what you're talking about, I think. If you can control your rising gorge then you could have a rational debate about them! The debate would be about connecting some set of principles to the claim. "Ethical falsifiability" then means that a claim is well-formed enough that a connection to some set of concrete principles can be made. I also notice that I've instinctively not introduced "scientifically falsifiable" statements, such as these: 1. Global warming is real. 2. Vaccinations cause autism. 3. The earth is flat 4. Evolution is wrong 5. Science is a scam. 6. Putin helped Trump get elected. 7. Light is a wave in luminferous ether. ... To me, these claims are just not that interesting (the one exception is 5, a meta-assertion about the state of academic scientific inquiry itself). It would take a person with extraordinary credentials to get me to start talking about any of these.

throwaway0255 9y ago

He made his original point pretty clearly in my opinion. As a result of his original post (which was totally harmless and not even slightly controversial), he's forced to write this mea culpa to avoid being labeled a heretic (which is literally the problem he's discussing in his original post), and has to end it with a dig at Donald Trump as if to say to the people threatening him with claims of heresy: "Hey guys, see, I'm on your side. Isn't Donald Trump the worst?" The irony is just incredible. Nice try Sam, but you made the mistake of trying to reason with these people. You're not a person making arguments; to the people you're talking about in that original post, you're merely an embodiment of whatever ideology they think you're representing at the time. Your critics aren't even concerned with what they think as individuals, they're purely concerned with the aggregate of what their contacts on social media will pretend to think publicly. Trying to debate them on an individual or intellectual level seems pointless, especially through any kind of broadcast medium. Your ideas will get through to some, but only the response labeling you a heretic will be shared. There are jokes people will laugh at when they're in a dark room, but if the lights are on and their family is watching, they will shake their head disapprovingly instead. Politics is the joke, and social media is the light and family in that room.

javajosh 9y ago
I agree with Sam's point, but disagree that he made it clearly. The best thing he could do is make a list of examples. My other comment in this thread explains more thoroughly what I mean by that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941597
Avshalom 9y ago
Thing is: nobody threatened to murder him, no one called for a boycott of Y Combinator. Nobody did anything except disagree with him. Somehow an insignificant fraction of humanity disagreeing with him was too much for him to deal with though.
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  It is probably difficult to voice an unpopular opinion and have it be met with so much derision by people whose opinions on business matters you respect so deeply. Unfortunately it is quite common for a pragmatic and reasonable professionals to have less than reasonable personal beliefs. Sam cares about what people think about him which is healthy and separates him from the sociopaths of the world.

oceanghost 9y ago

Before startups, there was this concept of "professionalism". The core idea of which was, you would be able to accomplish your goals in a wide variety of adverse conditions.

quantumofmalice 9y ago

> I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress. Well, Sam, you didn't say that. Rather, the totalitarian left, exactly who the article was criticizing, sensed heresy and pounced, without any goodwill or thoughtfulness. They did exactly what you implied they would do, and now you are apologizing for them doing it. 2017, everybody.

api 9y ago
We seem to have a totalitarian left that wants an intellectual monoculture vs. a totalitarian right that wants an ethnic and cultural monoculture. I've been rediscovering libertarian ideas lately and realizing in the process just how profoundly and deeply the discourse has shifted toward authoritarianism across the whole political spectrum over the last 15 years. I really blame 9/11. The West lost its collective mind after that event and still has not recovered. Apparently terrorism works. Economics is probably the other factor. Stocks are up but the street has not recovered. Totalitarian ideas always grow when people feel economically stressed. I think it might even be instinct, sort of like how chimps get aggressive and raid when under stress. Totalitarianism is about preparing to raid the neighboring tribe.
marcelluspye 9y ago
"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics." He literally did say that. Maybe that's not what he meant, and the gist of what he was saying was correct, but he said what he said. But go ahead and vilify the people who took issue with what reads essentially like a utilitarian apology for homophobia.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]