4 ms·

My Enlightenment Fanaticism

23 points by apsec112 6y ago

737min 6y ago
This topic and post needs more attention. The comments so far show how badly this dialog is needed here on HN, and elsewhere. Scott Aaronson is smart, left-of-center and thoughtful. It’s well worth reading
chrisco255 6y ago
This is now the second article or so on the HN front page that attempts a vigorous defense of free speech but then immediately undermines that by spending ink on Trump. Modern conservatives aren't responsible for cancel culture and elected Trump precisely as a counter-reaction to cancel culture. The attempt to unify progressives and classical liberals is weird to me, as I see the far left evolving into something resembling a puritanical religion. If you want a moderate middle of the road that respects all sides of debate and discussion, then center-right and center-left should unify against the extremes. Nothing else will work, in my opinion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  > Modern conservatives aren't responsible for cancel culture and elected Trump precisely as a counter-reaction to cancel culture. I'd like to see some data behind this assertion. Even what proportion of Trump voters used "anti cancel culture" as even ONE of, if not the main, reason why. Vs. "not hillary", or he was the name on the Republican side of the ballot, or "he says what he thinks" or "the wall"
  - diffrinse 6y ago
    On election night I recall the CNN anchors interviewing voters and getting "He's a straight shooter"/"honest" a whole lot. What's ironic about America is that working class White and Black folk are both weary of white-collar professionals telling them what to do. Strangely, neither group thinks of businessmen or other instances of rich people as white-collar (both groups express veneration for the "businessman"/"hustler"), as somehow closer to themselves and values than middle-class professionals (like Obama). Class underwrites so much in this country, but because class discussion has largely and for the most part been verboten since the 50s, we instead get this weird conflation of race and class. This gets even more interesting when you realize Official BLM is just the bourgeois representation of working-class Black interests and there are many many YouTube videos of those Black interests expressing exactly that[0]. Of course, people think all Black people must be one big monolith, both owing to de facto segregation and the loudest minority problem, (they simply don't know enough Black people) because that's what Bourgeois profiteers want you to think; just like how people still actually think there was an clear, firm relationship between the protests and the riots, as much as protesters want to claim there is in order to hold some vague threat of further violence when they in all likelihood were not also the ones doing the rioting and vice versa. [0] Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YcB1pJ69A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YcB1pJ69A
- floren 6y ago
  > This is now the second article or so on the HN front page that attempts a vigorous defense of free speech but then immediately undermines that by spending ink on Trump. You have to establish your bona fides up front ("Trump's real bad, hell, he might declare himself dictator if he loses the election!!!") before saying this sort of thing, as a sort of preemptive defense against getting called a Nazi.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I strongly disagree with the assessment of Trump as a Conservative. He is a populist fascist who wants to be a dictator. The scary thing is that the republican party with the exception of one individual (and look how the republican establishment treated him for it) is supporting him unconditionally. Regarding, cancel culture is not a thing used by the right,. Rubbish see the calls from conservatives when someone does not support the troops enough or "disrespect the flag" or similar, let's not even get to the actively inciting violence against people who disagree coming from Trump and supporters. As a side note US politics from an outside perspective sits between centre right, right (democrats) to extreme right (GOP), with a couple of centre left voices (Sanders, AOC).
  - bananaface 6y ago
    If you think Trump wants power but AOC doesn't, your emotional radar is broken. Sanders is one of the few politicians I'd describe as driven by anything other than power.
jariel 6y ago
The issue is that there is only 'one side'. Nobody dares counter the arguments of the mob, lest they face the wrath, and have to live on the brand and make it as an 'outsider' such as David Peterson, for the rest of their careers. The 'one side' has enough quasi-radical and aggressive voices with 'useful fodder followers' who probably are not as far fetched, I think a lot of personal politics, with an ever increasing sense of righteousness and entitlement. If Chomsky had real integrity, instead of refusing to sign, he would have come to Pinker's defence and taken a stand. If he's too afraid, well then who will? Most of the press is taking a side, corporations are mostly just fearful. This is not a meme, it's an 'existential' deal as the movement purports to literally change what the our institutions are, and what the meaning of the Truth is. It's disturbing also because many of us are otherwise quite sympathetic to many causes, but what happens if you're given a choice of either supporting the 'radical liberation and overthrow of the Enlightenment' vs. possibly some plain, centre-right voice, who's maybe not very interested in progress but has other, pragmatic concerns?
stillbourne 6y ago
If you were a true enlightenment fanatic you would know that even the proponents of freedom of expression didn't support universal toleration. Not even John Locke supported pure universal toleration, although in his case he wanted to silence the voices of atheists. You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. In the case of this article has the "Purity Posse" gone to far? Absolutely! But that does not mean that his work is not above scrutiny. You need to also understand the position of the other side too. Let us peer into the ugly side of racial injustice and the concept that the super predator juvenile detention system that was part of and is still part of the school to prison pipeline. Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist and oppressive systems that piggy back on our very justice system? Most the supporting evidence for those concepts were coached in pseudo-scientific psychobabble. The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong and misguided but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how. In this case they are wrong, but would they be wrong about other researchers that have written work that is antithetical to racial justice in America? This article is so unbalanced. It defends Pinker but it doesn't bother trying to even understand his detractors in this case. Just goes on a diatribe that sounds so much like all the other white persecution complex arguments I hear all the time.
- jariel 6y ago
  This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. " There is no confusion. This is a straw-man - nobody is denying that 'speech should have no consequences'. Pinker and others are being attacked for making very reasonable, civil claims, not any kind of fanaticism which deserves 'consequence'. 2) "Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist". Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not an academic, but I would. Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? Juvenile systems and such problems exist basically all over the world, there are racial elements but that doesn't make them racist. It's a complicated problem. 3) "Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how." The 'only way they know how' is to crush ideas, dismiss facts, destroy individuals, the Truth, our most trusted institutions in pursuit of their Orthodoxy? That's 'the only way they know how', and a defence of the approach? 4) "The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. " Yes, this is the scary zealotry we're concerned about. First, it's entirely possible that systems can achieve reform without fanaticism, and second, it's also fair that there is debate, consternation, dialogue, experiments. Fanatical ideas are great, fanatical movements are not.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
it was foolish to think that this would stop where we personally thought "the line" was i hope we have all learned a valuable lesson here

23 points by apsec112 6y ago

This topic and post needs more attention. The comments so far show how badly this dialog is needed here on HN, and elsewhere. Scott Aaronson is smart, left-of-center and thoughtful. It’s well worth reading

chrisco255 6y ago

This is now the second article or so on the HN front page that attempts a vigorous defense of free speech but then immediately undermines that by spending ink on Trump. Modern conservatives aren't responsible for cancel culture and elected Trump precisely as a counter-reaction to cancel culture. The attempt to unify progressives and classical liberals is weird to me, as I see the far left evolving into something resembling a puritanical religion. If you want a moderate middle of the road that respects all sides of debate and discussion, then center-right and center-left should unify against the extremes. Nothing else will work, in my opinion.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
michaelcampbell 6y ago
> Modern conservatives aren't responsible for cancel culture and elected Trump precisely as a counter-reaction to cancel culture. I'd like to see some data behind this assertion. Even what proportion of Trump voters used "anti cancel culture" as even ONE of, if not the main, reason why. Vs. "not hillary", or he was the name on the Republican side of the ballot, or "he says what he thinks" or "the wall"
- diffrinse 6y ago
  On election night I recall the CNN anchors interviewing voters and getting "He's a straight shooter"/"honest" a whole lot. What's ironic about America is that working class White and Black folk are both weary of white-collar professionals telling them what to do. Strangely, neither group thinks of businessmen or other instances of rich people as white-collar (both groups express veneration for the "businessman"/"hustler"), as somehow closer to themselves and values than middle-class professionals (like Obama). Class underwrites so much in this country, but because class discussion has largely and for the most part been verboten since the 50s, we instead get this weird conflation of race and class. This gets even more interesting when you realize Official BLM is just the bourgeois representation of working-class Black interests and there are many many YouTube videos of those Black interests expressing exactly that[0]. Of course, people think all Black people must be one big monolith, both owing to de facto segregation and the loudest minority problem, (they simply don't know enough Black people) because that's what Bourgeois profiteers want you to think; just like how people still actually think there was an clear, firm relationship between the protests and the riots, as much as protesters want to claim there is in order to hold some vague threat of further violence when they in all likelihood were not also the ones doing the rioting and vice versa. [0] Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YcB1pJ69A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YcB1pJ69A
floren 6y ago
> This is now the second article or so on the HN front page that attempts a vigorous defense of free speech but then immediately undermines that by spending ink on Trump. You have to establish your bona fides up front ("Trump's real bad, hell, he might declare himself dictator if he loses the election!!!") before saying this sort of thing, as a sort of preemptive defense against getting called a Nazi.
cycomanic 6y ago
I strongly disagree with the assessment of Trump as a Conservative. He is a populist fascist who wants to be a dictator. The scary thing is that the republican party with the exception of one individual (and look how the republican establishment treated him for it) is supporting him unconditionally. Regarding, cancel culture is not a thing used by the right,. Rubbish see the calls from conservatives when someone does not support the troops enough or "disrespect the flag" or similar, let's not even get to the actively inciting violence against people who disagree coming from Trump and supporters. As a side note US politics from an outside perspective sits between centre right, right (democrats) to extreme right (GOP), with a couple of centre left voices (Sanders, AOC).
- bananaface 6y ago
  If you think Trump wants power but AOC doesn't, your emotional radar is broken. Sanders is one of the few politicians I'd describe as driven by anything other than power.

jariel 6y ago

The issue is that there is only 'one side'. Nobody dares counter the arguments of the mob, lest they face the wrath, and have to live on the brand and make it as an 'outsider' such as David Peterson, for the rest of their careers. The 'one side' has enough quasi-radical and aggressive voices with 'useful fodder followers' who probably are not as far fetched, I think a lot of personal politics, with an ever increasing sense of righteousness and entitlement. If Chomsky had real integrity, instead of refusing to sign, he would have come to Pinker's defence and taken a stand. If he's too afraid, well then who will? Most of the press is taking a side, corporations are mostly just fearful. This is not a meme, it's an 'existential' deal as the movement purports to literally change what the our institutions are, and what the meaning of the Truth is. It's disturbing also because many of us are otherwise quite sympathetic to many causes, but what happens if you're given a choice of either supporting the 'radical liberation and overthrow of the Enlightenment' vs. possibly some plain, centre-right voice, who's maybe not very interested in progress but has other, pragmatic concerns?

stillbourne 6y ago

If you were a true enlightenment fanatic you would know that even the proponents of freedom of expression didn't support universal toleration. Not even John Locke supported pure universal toleration, although in his case he wanted to silence the voices of atheists. You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. In the case of this article has the "Purity Posse" gone to far? Absolutely! But that does not mean that his work is not above scrutiny. You need to also understand the position of the other side too. Let us peer into the ugly side of racial injustice and the concept that the super predator juvenile detention system that was part of and is still part of the school to prison pipeline. Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist and oppressive systems that piggy back on our very justice system? Most the supporting evidence for those concepts were coached in pseudo-scientific psychobabble. The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong and misguided but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how. In this case they are wrong, but would they be wrong about other researchers that have written work that is antithetical to racial justice in America? This article is so unbalanced. It defends Pinker but it doesn't bother trying to even understand his detractors in this case. Just goes on a diatribe that sounds so much like all the other white persecution complex arguments I hear all the time.

jariel 6y ago
This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. " There is no confusion. This is a straw-man - nobody is denying that 'speech should have no consequences'. Pinker and others are being attacked for making very reasonable, civil claims, not any kind of fanaticism which deserves 'consequence'. 2) "Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist". Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not an academic, but I would. Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? Juvenile systems and such problems exist basically all over the world, there are racial elements but that doesn't make them racist. It's a complicated problem. 3) "Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how." The 'only way they know how' is to crush ideas, dismiss facts, destroy individuals, the Truth, our most trusted institutions in pursuit of their Orthodoxy? That's 'the only way they know how', and a defence of the approach? 4) "The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. " Yes, this is the scary zealotry we're concerned about. First, it's entirely possible that systems can achieve reform without fanaticism, and second, it's also fair that there is debate, consternation, dialogue, experiments. Fanatical ideas are great, fanatical movements are not.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

it was foolish to think that this would stop where we personally thought "the line" was i hope we have all learned a valuable lesson here