4 ms·

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

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.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > the moral divergence between his examples. Why do you think that his giving a variety of examples with different moral weights is a problem? The fact that big moral issues exist does not mean small ones don't, nor does it mean all small ones should be ignored until all of the big ones are fixed. > Instead of giving contemporary examples, though, he hand-waves in a way that absolutely will make one side nod vigorously with their priors. He addressed the question of contemporary examples in a follow-up here: http://www.paulgraham.com/resay.html http://www.paulgraham.com/resay.html
    - pfkurtz 5y ago
      Oh, they would so blow our tiny minds that to even think through one hypothetically would ruin the entire article? So I should just imagine how horrified someone (anyone?) in 1830 would be by the fact that I think black and white people, men and women, are moral and political equals? (That's what you just had me read.)
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > That's what you just had me read. I'm not sure we read the same article. (For example, the things pg says people in the 1830s would be horrified to hear do not include the thing you mention--and of course there were plenty of people in the 1830s who agreed with the viewpoint you mention and said it, loudly, so it was hardly something "you can't say" in that time period.) I don't agree with your vituperative criticisms, but I doubt we'll get anywhere with further discussion.
        pfkurtz 5y ago
        "If you doubt that, imagine what people in 1830 would think of our default educated east coast beliefs about, say, premarital sex, homosexuality, or the literal truth of the Bible. We would seem depraved to them." The way I put it is a legitimate if somewhat more abstract (but historically literate) gloss on this. My point is that PG is saying is dumb and ignorant and does not support his fantasizing about being Galileo. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

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.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > the moral divergence between his examples. Why do you think that his giving a variety of examples with different moral weights is a problem? The fact that big moral issues exist does not mean small ones don't, nor does it mean all small ones should be ignored until all of the big ones are fixed. > Instead of giving contemporary examples, though, he hand-waves in a way that absolutely will make one side nod vigorously with their priors. He addressed the question of contemporary examples in a follow-up here: http://www.paulgraham.com/resay.html http://www.paulgraham.com/resay.html
  - pfkurtz 5y ago
    Oh, they would so blow our tiny minds that to even think through one hypothetically would ruin the entire article? So I should just imagine how horrified someone (anyone?) in 1830 would be by the fact that I think black and white people, men and women, are moral and political equals? (That's what you just had me read.)
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > That's what you just had me read. I'm not sure we read the same article. (For example, the things pg says people in the 1830s would be horrified to hear do not include the thing you mention--and of course there were plenty of people in the 1830s who agreed with the viewpoint you mention and said it, loudly, so it was hardly something "you can't say" in that time period.) I don't agree with your vituperative criticisms, but I doubt we'll get anywhere with further discussion.
      - pfkurtz 5y ago
        "If you doubt that, imagine what people in 1830 would think of our default educated east coast beliefs about, say, premarital sex, homosexuality, or the literal truth of the Bible. We would seem depraved to them." The way I put it is a legitimate if somewhat more abstract (but historically literate) gloss on this. My point is that PG is saying is dumb and ignorant and does not support his fantasizing about being Galileo. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.