5 ms·

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now th

by oramit 6y ago

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?

marvin 6y ago
I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem. This was after years of pointing out that it's not necessarily a good idea to specifically discuss controversial topics, if you want to spend your time thinking and learning instead of arguing (and, implied, deleting hate mail and death threats, etc). This essay was met with an incredible amount of backlash that missed its point entirely, and if I was in PG's shoes, I'd probably have soured on taking that sort of discussion outside my closest circle. A big but very understandable loss. I believe that discussing the phenomenon, rather than specific instances of it, still has great value. This points out tools that can be used to discover and handle the censorship of valuable heresy. I'd love it even more if I had intimate access to a group of very intelligent and open-minded folks to actually discuss the heresies of today, as this is both super fascinating and a great mental stretching exercise. Sadly, doesn't look like public forums on the Internet are the most fertile arena for that kind of thing. It happens rarely, when I happen to stumble across a community that hits something like this by chance, or where one of my real-life acquaintances happens to stray outside the box in exactly the right way.
- NoodleIncident 6y ago
  Do you have examples of the backlash to this essay? Were there any actual consequences to expressing his opinion, or did people just express their own opinions about his?
- oramit 6y ago
  I appreciate the response. I'm not certain which essay you are referring to so I can't comment on it or the backlash it received specifically. In this "Quadrants" essay PG clearly aligns himself with the entrepreneurial free-thinkers, who bravely face down the mob. The problem with this though is he doesn't seem to be able to handle the criticism part. He acknowledges it is going to happen but when he gets dunked on for an essay, he takes his ball, goes home, and then complains that he can't have a real discussion. But that's the entire point. He wrote something, people disagreed, that's the discussion. Did he take people's disagreements seriously? Did he change his mind? Was he unconvinced and pointed out why the people who disagreed were wrong? He seems to want to take on the mantle of beleaguered free-thinker while only willing to receive praise.
  - pjscott 6y ago
    Sounds like this essay, "Economic Inequality": http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html And here's the HN thread from when it was first written: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838
- __alexs 6y ago
  I've read many of his essays on inequality and generally he over simplifies the economics and social issues involved so much it's almost impossible to critcise it. His style is so vague on these matters I'm not surprised he gets so much backlash. It's not good writing to be purposefully ambiguous.
sinker 6y ago
I'll give it a try. At your company's next diversity seminar, why not suggest merit should be prioritized over diversity? Or that affirmative action is regressive in its effects, or that the talk of reparations is so silly as to be dismissed, or that women's unequal pay is due to factors unrelated to sexism, or that Asians are unfairly penalized in universities and the workplace, or that biological sex exists, or that trans women are not real women, or that trans women should not share a bathroom with biological women, or that white men are not oppressors, or that you don't support BLM. Whether or not these ideas are right, you clearly cannot express them. Not in the workplace and if you live in a large city, not to strangers, and sometimes not even to your friends. There's an implicit belief that if you deviate from some of these positions you must be a racist, misogynist, transphobic, alt-right, or a radical. There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.

by oramit 6y ago

marvin 6y ago

I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem. This was after years of pointing out that it's not necessarily a good idea to specifically discuss controversial topics, if you want to spend your time thinking and learning instead of arguing (and, implied, deleting hate mail and death threats, etc). This essay was met with an incredible amount of backlash that missed its point entirely, and if I was in PG's shoes, I'd probably have soured on taking that sort of discussion outside my closest circle. A big but very understandable loss. I believe that discussing the phenomenon, rather than specific instances of it, still has great value. This points out tools that can be used to discover and handle the censorship of valuable heresy. I'd love it even more if I had intimate access to a group of very intelligent and open-minded folks to actually discuss the heresies of today, as this is both super fascinating and a great mental stretching exercise. Sadly, doesn't look like public forums on the Internet are the most fertile arena for that kind of thing. It happens rarely, when I happen to stumble across a community that hits something like this by chance, or where one of my real-life acquaintances happens to stray outside the box in exactly the right way.

NoodleIncident 6y ago
Do you have examples of the backlash to this essay? Were there any actual consequences to expressing his opinion, or did people just express their own opinions about his?
oramit 6y ago
I appreciate the response. I'm not certain which essay you are referring to so I can't comment on it or the backlash it received specifically. In this "Quadrants" essay PG clearly aligns himself with the entrepreneurial free-thinkers, who bravely face down the mob. The problem with this though is he doesn't seem to be able to handle the criticism part. He acknowledges it is going to happen but when he gets dunked on for an essay, he takes his ball, goes home, and then complains that he can't have a real discussion. But that's the entire point. He wrote something, people disagreed, that's the discussion. Did he take people's disagreements seriously? Did he change his mind? Was he unconvinced and pointed out why the people who disagreed were wrong? He seems to want to take on the mantle of beleaguered free-thinker while only willing to receive praise.
- pjscott 6y ago
  Sounds like this essay, "Economic Inequality": http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html And here's the HN thread from when it was first written: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838
__alexs 6y ago
I've read many of his essays on inequality and generally he over simplifies the economics and social issues involved so much it's almost impossible to critcise it. His style is so vague on these matters I'm not surprised he gets so much backlash. It's not good writing to be purposefully ambiguous.

sinker 6y ago

I'll give it a try. At your company's next diversity seminar, why not suggest merit should be prioritized over diversity? Or that affirmative action is regressive in its effects, or that the talk of reparations is so silly as to be dismissed, or that women's unequal pay is due to factors unrelated to sexism, or that Asians are unfairly penalized in universities and the workplace, or that biological sex exists, or that trans women are not real women, or that trans women should not share a bathroom with biological women, or that white men are not oppressors, or that you don't support BLM. Whether or not these ideas are right, you clearly cannot express them. Not in the workplace and if you live in a large city, not to strangers, and sometimes not even to your friends. There's an implicit belief that if you deviate from some of these positions you must be a racist, misogynist, transphobic, alt-right, or a radical. There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.