6 ms·

It just means not having the right opinion on the current issue of the month. Or anything about the groups of people you’re not allowed to criticize.

by 3qz 5y ago

tlogan 5y ago
Can you please be more specific? I really do not know what would be “heresy” now. Maybe I’m tweeting something which is “heresy” (and knowing that since nobody reads my tweets).
- gonehome 5y ago
  David Shor’s firing is the common example since it’s the most egregious case (getting fired for retweeting a black professor's paper arguing riots are bad for black political movements). See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin... Nastiness directed at JK Rowling and Jesse Singal because of trans stuff [0][1]. I’d add Bari Weiss to this list too. [2] If the mob could destroy these people and get them fired they would. As it is the pressure from the mob makes things unpleasant for them. Most people would not continue to fight back against it. Sam Harris gets a similar level of hostility for what are very nuanced conversations and it’s why he has his own platform. James Demore at Google is another more controversial case (actually read the memo - it’s way more benign then you’d think from the meta conversation and imo a reasonable thing to discuss). AGM wrote chaos monkeys and comes across as an ass in it so he had his offer rescinded from apple - I personally don’t care as much about this one since there’s some risk here with what you write and how it represents you when it comes to a hiring decision (though Apple handled it poorly). Depending on where you work not adhering to Kendi style anti-racism can also be heretical. Then there are pressures for other things like being forced to state pronouns in tech interviews or be unlikely to move forward. The song and dance around land acknowledgements (I think they're dumb, but that's likely a heretical view in these circles). Being given side eye or “corrected” if you don’t say “Latinx” at work. There are lists of stuff like this at work, told not to say “sanity check” because it offends insane people, don’t say “left hand side” because it hurts one handed people. If you don't agree you can find yourself labeled ableist, racist, transphobe, etc. specific arguments from you are then ignored and your job can be at risk. Lots of stupid shit imo and pushing back against it will often have harmful career consequences so you have to be quiet about it. Most of the people loudly complaining about this stuff are on the right, but it affects a lot of people across the political spectrum. I suspect the right complains the most about it because they paradoxically have the least to lose (they're just in a separate tribe anyway with their own political support structures). The people that get hurt by this the most imo are earnest people that are interested in things that are true despite tribal affiliation, they're more exposed. This permeates the culture and makes it hard to have interesting conversations about anything that comes anywhere close to a third rail topic. It also makes it harder to understand what’s true. I find Sam Harris, Bari Weiss, Scott Alexander, Yascha Mounk, Andrew Sullivan, Coleman Hughes, Kmele, to be good examples of people engaging on this stuff in a nuanced way across the political spectrum. For what it's worth this is a comment I would not have historically been comfortable writing before getting a new job where the risk from this kind of thing blowing up and having career consequences is reduced. That's likely the most common negative affect of this kind of heresy. When you put penalties on sharing ideas sure you block some truly horrible stuff, but you also snuff out anything that doesn't align with the current cultural beliefs about what is correct and true. The issue with that is what's currently believed to be true is almost certainly not 100% correct and rigidly enforcing cultural beliefs will slow down our ability to struggle closer towards things that are more correct. That's why holding free speech up as a virtue is better on net (and engaging in in-good-faith discourse on difficult topics is a good thing). When you limit speech you put a subset of people in the position to choose which speech to limit - even those with the best intentions will do this poorly, it's better to have robust systems that don't require this centralized speech control. The promise of the web was to enable this (and in a lot of ways it has), but the failure of the web is that problems with our computing stack incentivize centralized services that bring this problem back. Either way, mobs pushing to silence/fire people that disagree with them is probably something we should work to avoid. [0]: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18mvHPN9mY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18mvHPN9mY [2]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watching-lia-thomas-win/id1570872415?i=1000553066075 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watching-lia-thomas-wi...
- umvi 5y ago
  The following opinions will be labelled as heresy by the left (note there are plenty of heresies labeled by the right as well): - Transgenderism is a mental illness - Trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete athletically with cis women - Kids under age 8 shouldn't be taught LGBT concepts such as gender identity in elementary schools (read: "Don't Say Gay Bill") - Code of Conducts in software projects are dumb and ineffective - Biden shouldn't have used affirmative action to assign a SCOTUS justice - Forced corporate DEI is dumb and ineffective
- darepublic 5y ago
  If you use master branch on git you are racist. Inexplicably the word is still ok in other contexts like chess master. Although maybe that needs to be updated too. What's the harm in changing the term to chess expert I ask you? Are you going to get so hung up defending the use of a word?
beaconstudios 5y ago
Which groups are deserving of criticism that they're currently protected from?
- 3qz 5y ago
  For example, almost everything I’ve ever heard about white privilege is also true for Jewish people but it would be a career ending mistake to talk about the over representation of Jewish people in positions of power.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Jewish people are white though - and "white privilege" as a concept is primarily about how white people don't have to overcome racism or adapt their behaviour to the dominant culture to get ahead. It does connect with issues of diversity but it's not a direct explanation.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      > Jewish people are white though No, this isn't true. Jewish is an ethnicity that crosses multiple "race" backgrounds.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I agree, but if we're talking about the Jewish people who OP was talking about (in relation to overrepresentation), that's white Jewish people.
    - 3qz 5y ago
      “In positions of power” is the important thing here. I’m not talking about diversity, I mean statements like “a small number of extremely wealthy white men have a disproportionate influence in the media, government, financial system, some specific company, etc” is a common left wing opinion for why systems work against the interests of racialized people. It’s even more accurate if you add “Jewish” after the word white, but that’s not something we’re allowed to talk about.

It just means not having the right opinion on the current issue of the month. Or anything about the groups of people you’re not allowed to criticize.

by 3qz 5y ago

It just means not having the right opinion on the current issue of the month. Or anything about the groups of people you’re not allowed to criticize.

tlogan 5y ago

Can you please be more specific? I really do not know what would be “heresy” now. Maybe I’m tweeting something which is “heresy” (and knowing that since nobody reads my tweets).

gonehome 5y ago
David Shor’s firing is the common example since it’s the most egregious case (getting fired for retweeting a black professor's paper arguing riots are bad for black political movements). See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin... Nastiness directed at JK Rowling and Jesse Singal because of trans stuff [0][1]. I’d add Bari Weiss to this list too. [2] If the mob could destroy these people and get them fired they would. As it is the pressure from the mob makes things unpleasant for them. Most people would not continue to fight back against it. Sam Harris gets a similar level of hostility for what are very nuanced conversations and it’s why he has his own platform. James Demore at Google is another more controversial case (actually read the memo - it’s way more benign then you’d think from the meta conversation and imo a reasonable thing to discuss). AGM wrote chaos monkeys and comes across as an ass in it so he had his offer rescinded from apple - I personally don’t care as much about this one since there’s some risk here with what you write and how it represents you when it comes to a hiring decision (though Apple handled it poorly). Depending on where you work not adhering to Kendi style anti-racism can also be heretical. Then there are pressures for other things like being forced to state pronouns in tech interviews or be unlikely to move forward. The song and dance around land acknowledgements (I think they're dumb, but that's likely a heretical view in these circles). Being given side eye or “corrected” if you don’t say “Latinx” at work. There are lists of stuff like this at work, told not to say “sanity check” because it offends insane people, don’t say “left hand side” because it hurts one handed people. If you don't agree you can find yourself labeled ableist, racist, transphobe, etc. specific arguments from you are then ignored and your job can be at risk. Lots of stupid shit imo and pushing back against it will often have harmful career consequences so you have to be quiet about it. Most of the people loudly complaining about this stuff are on the right, but it affects a lot of people across the political spectrum. I suspect the right complains the most about it because they paradoxically have the least to lose (they're just in a separate tribe anyway with their own political support structures). The people that get hurt by this the most imo are earnest people that are interested in things that are true despite tribal affiliation, they're more exposed. This permeates the culture and makes it hard to have interesting conversations about anything that comes anywhere close to a third rail topic. It also makes it harder to understand what’s true. I find Sam Harris, Bari Weiss, Scott Alexander, Yascha Mounk, Andrew Sullivan, Coleman Hughes, Kmele, to be good examples of people engaging on this stuff in a nuanced way across the political spectrum. For what it's worth this is a comment I would not have historically been comfortable writing before getting a new job where the risk from this kind of thing blowing up and having career consequences is reduced. That's likely the most common negative affect of this kind of heresy. When you put penalties on sharing ideas sure you block some truly horrible stuff, but you also snuff out anything that doesn't align with the current cultural beliefs about what is correct and true. The issue with that is what's currently believed to be true is almost certainly not 100% correct and rigidly enforcing cultural beliefs will slow down our ability to struggle closer towards things that are more correct. That's why holding free speech up as a virtue is better on net (and engaging in in-good-faith discourse on difficult topics is a good thing). When you limit speech you put a subset of people in the position to choose which speech to limit - even those with the best intentions will do this poorly, it's better to have robust systems that don't require this centralized speech control. The promise of the web was to enable this (and in a lot of ways it has), but the failure of the web is that problems with our computing stack incentivize centralized services that bring this problem back. Either way, mobs pushing to silence/fire people that disagree with them is probably something we should work to avoid. [0]: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18mvHPN9mY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18mvHPN9mY [2]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watching-lia-thomas-win/id1570872415?i=1000553066075 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watching-lia-thomas-wi...
umvi 5y ago
The following opinions will be labelled as heresy by the left (note there are plenty of heresies labeled by the right as well): - Transgenderism is a mental illness - Trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete athletically with cis women - Kids under age 8 shouldn't be taught LGBT concepts such as gender identity in elementary schools (read: "Don't Say Gay Bill") - Code of Conducts in software projects are dumb and ineffective - Biden shouldn't have used affirmative action to assign a SCOTUS justice - Forced corporate DEI is dumb and ineffective
darepublic 5y ago
If you use master branch on git you are racist. Inexplicably the word is still ok in other contexts like chess master. Although maybe that needs to be updated too. What's the harm in changing the term to chess expert I ask you? Are you going to get so hung up defending the use of a word?

beaconstudios 5y ago

Which groups are deserving of criticism that they're currently protected from?

3qz 5y ago
For example, almost everything I’ve ever heard about white privilege is also true for Jewish people but it would be a career ending mistake to talk about the over representation of Jewish people in positions of power.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Jewish people are white though - and "white privilege" as a concept is primarily about how white people don't have to overcome racism or adapt their behaviour to the dominant culture to get ahead. It does connect with issues of diversity but it's not a direct explanation.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    > Jewish people are white though No, this isn't true. Jewish is an ethnicity that crosses multiple "race" backgrounds.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I agree, but if we're talking about the Jewish people who OP was talking about (in relation to overrepresentation), that's white Jewish people.
  - 3qz 5y ago
    “In positions of power” is the important thing here. I’m not talking about diversity, I mean statements like “a small number of extremely wealthy white men have a disproportionate influence in the media, government, financial system, some specific company, etc” is a common left wing opinion for why systems work against the interests of racialized people. It’s even more accurate if you add “Jewish” after the word white, but that’s not something we’re allowed to talk about.