4 ms·

His historical examples of when you need to keep your opinion to yourself: in circumstances of chattel slavery, totalitarianism, world war. His problem in 2004

His historical examples of when you need to keep your opinion to yourself: in circumstances of chattel slavery, totalitarianism, world war. His problem in 2004 (the year the United States launched an attack on a foreign country): people disagree with him and that makes him uncomfortable. The idea that all humans don't self-censor by default in front of all sorts of people is pretty myopic.

invalidOrTaken 5y ago
I'm not sure what you're implying---that pg is seeing censorship where there isn't, or that he's naive for not intuiting that it's everywhere, all the time. In my understanding, he's worrying that it's everywhere, all the time, in the self-censor sense.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > In my understanding, he's worrying that it's everywhere, all the time, in the self-censor sense. I don't think he's worried about self-censorship in itself. If he's worried about anything in this essay, I would say it's the possibility of losing the option he describes here: "The trouble with keeping your thoughts secret, though, is that you lose the advantages of discussion. Talking about an idea leads to more ideas. So the optimal plan, if you can manage it, is to have a few trusted friends you can speak openly to. This is not just a way to develop ideas; it's also a good rule of thumb for choosing friends. The people you can say heretical things to without getting jumped on are also the most interesting to know."
- pfkurtz 5y ago
  I am implying, and in no way do I take myself to be doing anything more noble than shitposting here, that the kinds of forbidden opinions he is probably imagining himself to suffer for, are radically different from the kinds of opinions that people who actually end up suffering for their opinions have. MY big opinion that I'm violating right now: Never Post. Especially about "cancel culture". Cheers
strogonoff 5y ago
If we blame the author for a work focusing on an abstract topic not directly concerned with injustices happening at the time, no scientist or philosopher should have done anything since no one would be free of guilt by that measure (including, of course, us forum commenters). I doubt humans can even socially function (let alone progress) if we let the countless injustices happening every second occupy the entirety of our minds at all times—and it is the seemingly abstract works in philosophy, science that lay the necessary foundation for concrete progress that hopefully contributes to resolving those injustices. That said, is this just an elaborate justification for my own inaction? Should it be the next obvious thing that used to be unthinkable to talk about (like racial equality in the early times of chattel slavery) that a conscious person ought to withhold meaningful but not-directly-helping contributions to humanity until—I don’t know the exact measure here—say, the world is free of suffering and violence?
- pfkurtz 5y ago
  This is a fair point, that he is discussing abstractions. I almost wrote "I wish people would read moral philosophers on moral philosophy, not tech founders." He does give some examples, and they seem to fit in two categories: things done by tyrants, and other people thinking you should expand one's moral categories. I think it's clear that the ones that bother him, in his actual life, are the latter.
kodah 5y ago
Censorship takes a lot of different forms imo. Self-censorship usually takes place because one or more other forms of censorship are already at play. There's authority based censorship, like the banned books list. People legitimately believed that Catcher in the Rye caused serial killers at one point and definitely cast judgement on those willing to admit they'd read it. At the time, reading the book could cost you in social capital which I think is what PG is alluding to. From what I read, PG just wishes we didn't exercise moral judgement - which I get. I came from a religious background that weaponized their morals for ostracization or for hate, meanwhile, nobody within the system recognized they were doing that because they were blinded by the righteousness of their morals. In that way, morals are sticky webs. My curiosity drifts in a different way - assuming you can't rid the world of moral addiction - why were the people who believe such foolish morals (like banning books) not punished post facto? Folks with a laundry list of morals will often use the word "consequences", but where are their consequences when this moral falls out of style and has senselessly ruined lives?
- pfkurtz 5y ago
  We don't need to look to Catcher in the Rye. Conservatives are banning books and outlawing kinds of self-expression, kinds of self-identity, in many countries, RIGHT NOW. What opinions, in 2004, or 2022, does Paul Graham not think one can express safely? I'm skeptical it's the list of opinions that the state is actually being used to suppress, just opinions that many people find morally objectionable.
  - _ktx2 5y ago
    > Conservatives are banning books and outlawing kinds of self-expression, kinds of self-identity, in many countries, RIGHT NOW. I agree, conservatives and liberals using morality as an excuse to cause harm are problematic. > What opinions, in 2004, or 2022, does Paul Graham not think one can express safely If I had to guess he's probably thinking on the war and what he's allowed to and what he's not allowed to say. The USG certainly wasn't telling him no; it was individuals and their morals who created an environment of fear and walking on eggshells. I'm not sure how that differs from what we experience today. That said, I think what PG is talking about is the long-term frailty of morals. They change constantly, because they're largely based on hegemonic personal perceptions. To me, the overarching argument is to let morality take a backseat and let people question the world for themselves.
pdonis 5y ago
> The idea that all humans don't self-censor by default in front of all sorts of people ...is not the idea pg's essay is talking about. In fact he calls the advice to self-censor by default (Wooton's advice to Milton) "wise advice". He's obviously aware that people self-censor and he obviously doesn't think that's a bad thing in itself. > people disagree with him and that makes him uncomfortable. Where are you getting that from?
- pfkurtz 5y ago
  The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention. So another way to figure out which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Take a label — "sexist", for example — and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true?
  - pdonis 5y ago
    How is any of this saying that pg is uncomfortable because people disagree with him?
    - pfkurtz 5y ago
      You're right, I'm not a mind reader, I don't know if "discomfort" is the right word; my original comment was snark, meant to draw attention to the moral divergence between his examples. But honestly: the stuff about "racial insensitivity" and the words "divisive" and "inappropriate" DO get somewhere in the ballpark of "uncomfortable". I'm trying for a neutral word to capture it. None of this is anything like the historical examples—totalitarianism, religious persecution—that inflate his abstract case. These are still problems today on a scale that dwarfs "cancel culture" and "self-censorship". He gives historical examples. Instead of giving contemporary examples, though, he hand-waves in a way that absolutely will make one side nod vigorously with their priors. Its BS. Tech executives keep getting treated like moral philosophers because they wink and say "why not phrenology?" in order to pose as victims. Galileo was oppressed by religious conservatives engaging in a moral panic. That's happening now, too.

invalidOrTaken 5y ago

I'm not sure what you're implying---that pg is seeing censorship where there isn't, or that he's naive for not intuiting that it's everywhere, all the time. In my understanding, he's worrying that it's everywhere, all the time, in the self-censor sense.

pdonis 5y ago
> In my understanding, he's worrying that it's everywhere, all the time, in the self-censor sense. I don't think he's worried about self-censorship in itself. If he's worried about anything in this essay, I would say it's the possibility of losing the option he describes here: "The trouble with keeping your thoughts secret, though, is that you lose the advantages of discussion. Talking about an idea leads to more ideas. So the optimal plan, if you can manage it, is to have a few trusted friends you can speak openly to. This is not just a way to develop ideas; it's also a good rule of thumb for choosing friends. The people you can say heretical things to without getting jumped on are also the most interesting to know."
pfkurtz 5y ago
I am implying, and in no way do I take myself to be doing anything more noble than shitposting here, that the kinds of forbidden opinions he is probably imagining himself to suffer for, are radically different from the kinds of opinions that people who actually end up suffering for their opinions have. MY big opinion that I'm violating right now: Never Post. Especially about "cancel culture". Cheers

strogonoff 5y ago

If we blame the author for a work focusing on an abstract topic not directly concerned with injustices happening at the time, no scientist or philosopher should have done anything since no one would be free of guilt by that measure (including, of course, us forum commenters). I doubt humans can even socially function (let alone progress) if we let the countless injustices happening every second occupy the entirety of our minds at all times—and it is the seemingly abstract works in philosophy, science that lay the necessary foundation for concrete progress that hopefully contributes to resolving those injustices. That said, is this just an elaborate justification for my own inaction? Should it be the next obvious thing that used to be unthinkable to talk about (like racial equality in the early times of chattel slavery) that a conscious person ought to withhold meaningful but not-directly-helping contributions to humanity until—I don’t know the exact measure here—say, the world is free of suffering and violence?

pfkurtz 5y ago
This is a fair point, that he is discussing abstractions. I almost wrote "I wish people would read moral philosophers on moral philosophy, not tech founders." He does give some examples, and they seem to fit in two categories: things done by tyrants, and other people thinking you should expand one's moral categories. I think it's clear that the ones that bother him, in his actual life, are the latter.

kodah 5y ago

Censorship takes a lot of different forms imo. Self-censorship usually takes place because one or more other forms of censorship are already at play. There's authority based censorship, like the banned books list. People legitimately believed that Catcher in the Rye caused serial killers at one point and definitely cast judgement on those willing to admit they'd read it. At the time, reading the book could cost you in social capital which I think is what PG is alluding to. From what I read, PG just wishes we didn't exercise moral judgement - which I get. I came from a religious background that weaponized their morals for ostracization or for hate, meanwhile, nobody within the system recognized they were doing that because they were blinded by the righteousness of their morals. In that way, morals are sticky webs. My curiosity drifts in a different way - assuming you can't rid the world of moral addiction - why were the people who believe such foolish morals (like banning books) not punished post facto? Folks with a laundry list of morals will often use the word "consequences", but where are their consequences when this moral falls out of style and has senselessly ruined lives?

pfkurtz 5y ago
We don't need to look to Catcher in the Rye. Conservatives are banning books and outlawing kinds of self-expression, kinds of self-identity, in many countries, RIGHT NOW. What opinions, in 2004, or 2022, does Paul Graham not think one can express safely? I'm skeptical it's the list of opinions that the state is actually being used to suppress, just opinions that many people find morally objectionable.
- _ktx2 5y ago
  > Conservatives are banning books and outlawing kinds of self-expression, kinds of self-identity, in many countries, RIGHT NOW. I agree, conservatives and liberals using morality as an excuse to cause harm are problematic. > What opinions, in 2004, or 2022, does Paul Graham not think one can express safely If I had to guess he's probably thinking on the war and what he's allowed to and what he's not allowed to say. The USG certainly wasn't telling him no; it was individuals and their morals who created an environment of fear and walking on eggshells. I'm not sure how that differs from what we experience today. That said, I think what PG is talking about is the long-term frailty of morals. They change constantly, because they're largely based on hegemonic personal perceptions. To me, the overarching argument is to let morality take a backseat and let people question the world for themselves.

pdonis 5y ago

> The idea that all humans don't self-censor by default in front of all sorts of people ...is not the idea pg's essay is talking about. In fact he calls the advice to self-censor by default (Wooton's advice to Milton) "wise advice". He's obviously aware that people self-censor and he obviously doesn't think that's a bad thing in itself. > people disagree with him and that makes him uncomfortable. Where are you getting that from?

pfkurtz 5y ago
The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention. So another way to figure out which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Take a label — "sexist", for example — and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true?
- pdonis 5y ago
  How is any of this saying that pg is uncomfortable because people disagree with him?
  - pfkurtz 5y ago
    You're right, I'm not a mind reader, I don't know if "discomfort" is the right word; my original comment was snark, meant to draw attention to the moral divergence between his examples. But honestly: the stuff about "racial insensitivity" and the words "divisive" and "inappropriate" DO get somewhere in the ballpark of "uncomfortable". I'm trying for a neutral word to capture it. None of this is anything like the historical examples—totalitarianism, religious persecution—that inflate his abstract case. These are still problems today on a scale that dwarfs "cancel culture" and "self-censorship". He gives historical examples. Instead of giving contemporary examples, though, he hand-waves in a way that absolutely will make one side nod vigorously with their priors. Its BS. Tech executives keep getting treated like moral philosophers because they wink and say "why not phrenology?" in order to pose as victims. Galileo was oppressed by religious conservatives engaging in a moral panic. That's happening now, too.