7 ms·

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. The next one might

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine what that would be like. I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right. I'm curious how he can look at anti-"critical race theory" laws and "don't say gay" laws, which quite literally restrict freedom of speech among academics and teachers, and _not_ view this as a damaging and dangerous politics of conventionality. I'm curious as to how he can take a religious metaphor like 'heresy' and not apply it to the US American right which, in no small part part, advocates for a literal theocracy. These essays often seem very reasonable, to me, when stated in the abstract. Of course we should support freedom of speech! Of course we should be sure that nobody is fired for expressing harmless opinions! But, consistently, the proposed solutions are uninformed, unfeasable, ineffective, or even counterproductive. The best way to make sure people are not fired for speech is not to make it unacceptable for minorities to argue vehemently with their oppressors; it is to end right-to-work, end at-will employment, and give labor more power. The largest threat to the academy is not "mobs" of students expressing their disagreement with their schools' administrations' policies, it is the systematic defunding and devaluing of the humanities, the pure sciences, and the arts.

hikingsimulator 5y ago
I have nothing to add. Thank you.
jacobolus 5y ago
Paul Graham grew up in a time when rich middle-aged white men with no relevant experience or credential could spout off about whatever topic they wanted, including pseudo-intellectual racism/misogyny, and everyone would be forced to listen to their nonsense unable to respond with more than an eye-roll for fear of reprisals. (For that matter, when Graham grew up those powerful white dudes could beat people up, sexually assault people, etc. with no consequence.) Now when they spout similar nonsense, such dudes are publicly criticized, and the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them, to the point that whiny white/male supremacist grievance has now entirely taken over a whole US political party, which is trying to outlaw public criticism of white/male supremacist ideology. Edit: Disclaimer to satisfy rayiner: I am a 6'2" married 36-year-old straight white male homeowner with 2 kids and a car. Edit #2: Folks may enjoy https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-shame-and https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  > the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them This is a really good point. It's frustrating, though predictable, to see people arguing about the precise threshold of "harm" to which speech should be held in the comments here when the harm done to most people Graham seems to be defending amounts to "someone was mean to me on the Internet." And - yeah! That sucks! People being mean to you on the internet sucks. But until people like this are defending every target of KF/ED/4chan/etc hate mobs just as vehemently, I'm not really interested in treating them like they're neutral, rational parties.
- rayiner 5y ago
  - NoraCodes 5y ago
    How's that? The point being made here is that he is used to people in his position in society having a certain freedom from criticism, and therefore sees any vulnerability to criticism as a loss of freedom. This is an equally valid point whether the commenter is white or black, man or woman, old or young.
    - FerociousTimes 5y ago
      Can't you see the irony of your statement accusing PG of not tolerating criticism on his business' online public forum and under the topic of one of his essays and with a thread headed by your unequivocal rejection of his views on the issue at hand? I sincerely can't see your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys in all of this and that's the root cause of his disapproval and denouncement of cancel culture.
      - NoraCodes 5y ago
        Your wording is a bit odd, so let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You feel that it's ironic that, on a post about how Graham doesn't like it when people like him are criticized in specific, I criticized him, and told someone else that their particular criticism - one which is completely different from that which Graham is discussing - doesn't make sense? > your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys Not "PG ... enjoys"; a kind of immunity that people _like_ Graham _used to_ enjoy. That I can call him a dickhead on the internet with no repercussions is exactly what he doesn't like. > cancel culture Saying I don't agree with an essay on HackerNews is not "cancel culture."
wskinner 5y ago
> a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these groups has been so total and swift that it can be hard to to put things in perspective and imagine what life was like in the relatively recent past.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  > I doubt you could find a woman, disable person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. That's not what I meant and, I think, not what I said. I did not say that we _had_ rolled back those rights, but that we were in the _process_ of doing so. Rather than moving in the direction of liberation for these groups, we are moving in the opposite direction, at least in some places, and more relevantly for this discussion, that politics of oppression is normative in the right-wing party here. Graham's essay is explicitly aimed at the left, yet effectively elucidates the precise tactics and goals of the right.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    - NoraCodes 5y ago
      > pushing back against those dangerous radical ideas are not going to lead to "roll back" of any rights. I am referring specifically to Thomas looking to overturn Obergefell [1], TN trying to legalize child marriage [2], and current Republican efforts to reduce the effectiveness of the ADA. These are concrete examples of the right attempting to roll back certain rights. > do you agree 100% with critical race theory? It's an academic framework, not a set of policy goals, and I didn't study that in my CS curriculum, so I can't really speak to it. Can you? > do you agree 100% with LGBTQ activists? The vast majority of the policies they propose seem quite reasonable, yes. 1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willingness-to-overturn-obergefell-v-hodges/ https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi... 2: https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/ https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-l...
rayiner 5y ago
> reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right. Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders. Attempting to argue that the battles being fought today—fighting laws regulating private conduct in bedrooms versus teaching third graders about sexuality—is disingenuous. So is overlooking that the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester. > The best way to make sure people are not fired for speech is not to make it unacceptable for minorities to argue vehemently with their oppressors; Oh please. Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement. Elizabeth Warren’s voters in the Democratic Primary were about as white as Donald Trump’s (85%).
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  > how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1] > the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. [2] 1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willingness-to-overturn-obergefell-v-hodges/ https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi... 2: https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/ https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-l...
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1] This is a complete misreading of that opinion. Note that both Thomas and Alito concurred in the denial of cert. They said nothing of overturning Obergefell, but criticized the process by which it was done—by judicial fiat rather than legislation. Specifically, this meant that the legislature had no ability to consider and address religious objections. Thomas and Alito’s opinion not only didn’t call for Obergefell to be overturned, but are completely mainstream compared to other developed counties. The year after Obergefell, the EU Court of Human Rights ruled that the express right to marriage contained in the European Convention on Human Rights did not cover same sex marriage. EU countries all enacted same sex marriage through legislation—and they included various protections for religious liberty—exactly the process that Alito and Thomas said should have been followed. Switzerland only legalized it last year, and it’s still not legal in Italy. > the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. Meanwhile Colorado just legalized killing babies right up until birth.
steve76 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rilezg 5y ago
Great points. I would also highlight the following: > The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. I would offer the analogy of a broken (analog) clock. If a broken clock says the time is ten o’clock, and the time actually is ten o’clock, it is more important to note that the clock is broken than that the clock is correct. Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct. Critics of 'intolerance'/'cancel culture'/'heresy' often invoke truth in their arguments. They miss that the phenomenon has nothing to do with the truth of an out-of-context statement, rather it is about whether a person should be trusted.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  > Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct. This is a great analogy, but I'd go even further than this; someone can say something which is true, but in context use it to signal harmful intent. Saying "you know, that last commit from Jane was awful" while venting about bad process over lunch with a good friend is very different than saying "the last code Jane committed was awful" in a meeting about hiring the team's second female employee - even if it's absolutely true.
  - rilezg 5y ago
    Agreed. I was just imagining people posting publicly on social media, but good to say that situational context/audience also matters a ton when understanding a given statement. There is often much unspoken nuance/implications.
- alanlammiman 5y ago
  Thank you - I was familiar with 'a broken clock is right twice a day', but hadn't considered the analogy with prejudiced statements before. Useful
moolcool 5y ago
> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right Good point! The "problem" is often framed that society is full of adult-babies who can't be disagreed with without dire consequence. But is it at all possible that it's just the case that in recent years people have just felt more empowered to tout anti-social ideas which are worthy of scorn in the first place? There's quite a bit of evidence for the latter (January 6, Charlottesville, Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers).
version_five 5y ago
> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right I see the former (and maybe the latter, I honestly don't pay too much attention), but my interpretation is that a major culprit for any reversals in rights is the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance (which we had essentially achieved) to ridiculous "you're actively protesting with us or your against us" proportions that have caused the pushback. Just to add, in principle I'm against > anti-"critical race theory" laws and "don't say gay" laws even if they are mischaracterized to a large extent. But I see them as the latest escalation in response to provocation from the left. They were not written in a vacuum.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  > the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance [...] to ridiculous [...] proportions that have caused the pushback. This is the equivalent of the schoolyard bully saying "I wouldn't have hit him if he hadn't asked for his lunch money back."
  - version_five 5y ago
    I don't really want to debate you in analogy space, but what I said was equivalent to "the bully already gave you your lunch money back, but you're not happy with that anymore and stand there continuing to taunt him and asking for more money (or to acknowledge his priviledge or something)." My comment was giving my perception, anyway, I'm not trying to persuade.
nabla9 5y ago
PG's essays have smug 'fleeting above it all' tone. He gives the impression that he is not talking about himself or his in-group. There is kind of unsaid hint. More than 1,500 books have been banned in public schools, and a U.S. House panel asks why https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/04/09/more-than-1500-books-have-been-banned-in-public-schools-and-a-u-s-house-panel-asks-why/ https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/04/09/more-than-1500-books...
AlexTrask 5y ago
I think that Mr.Graham is not talking about rights and progress. curl -sb -H "http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html" | grep "right" one will be the last.<br><br>There are aggressively conventional-minded people on both the right come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine when, like the medieval church, they say "Damn right we're banning
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  `grep` is not the solution to every problem, friend. Not using exactly the same words does not mean we are not discussing the same topic.

hikingsimulator 5y ago

I have nothing to add. Thank you.

jacobolus 5y ago

Paul Graham grew up in a time when rich middle-aged white men with no relevant experience or credential could spout off about whatever topic they wanted, including pseudo-intellectual racism/misogyny, and everyone would be forced to listen to their nonsense unable to respond with more than an eye-roll for fear of reprisals. (For that matter, when Graham grew up those powerful white dudes could beat people up, sexually assault people, etc. with no consequence.) Now when they spout similar nonsense, such dudes are publicly criticized, and the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them, to the point that whiny white/male supremacist grievance has now entirely taken over a whole US political party, which is trying to outlaw public criticism of white/male supremacist ideology. Edit: Disclaimer to satisfy rayiner: I am a 6'2" married 36-year-old straight white male homeowner with 2 kids and a car. Edit #2: Folks may enjoy https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-shame-and https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...

NoraCodes 5y ago
> the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them This is a really good point. It's frustrating, though predictable, to see people arguing about the precise threshold of "harm" to which speech should be held in the comments here when the harm done to most people Graham seems to be defending amounts to "someone was mean to me on the Internet." And - yeah! That sucks! People being mean to you on the internet sucks. But until people like this are defending every target of KF/ED/4chan/etc hate mobs just as vehemently, I'm not really interested in treating them like they're neutral, rational parties.
rayiner 5y ago
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  How's that? The point being made here is that he is used to people in his position in society having a certain freedom from criticism, and therefore sees any vulnerability to criticism as a loss of freedom. This is an equally valid point whether the commenter is white or black, man or woman, old or young.
  - FerociousTimes 5y ago
    Can't you see the irony of your statement accusing PG of not tolerating criticism on his business' online public forum and under the topic of one of his essays and with a thread headed by your unequivocal rejection of his views on the issue at hand? I sincerely can't see your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys in all of this and that's the root cause of his disapproval and denouncement of cancel culture.
    - NoraCodes 5y ago
      Your wording is a bit odd, so let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You feel that it's ironic that, on a post about how Graham doesn't like it when people like him are criticized in specific, I criticized him, and told someone else that their particular criticism - one which is completely different from that which Graham is discussing - doesn't make sense? > your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys Not "PG ... enjoys"; a kind of immunity that people _like_ Graham _used to_ enjoy. That I can call him a dickhead on the internet with no repercussions is exactly what he doesn't like. > cancel culture Saying I don't agree with an essay on HackerNews is not "cancel culture."

wskinner 5y ago

> a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these groups has been so total and swift that it can be hard to to put things in perspective and imagine what life was like in the relatively recent past.

NoraCodes 5y ago
> I doubt you could find a woman, disable person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. That's not what I meant and, I think, not what I said. I did not say that we _had_ rolled back those rights, but that we were in the _process_ of doing so. Rather than moving in the direction of liberation for these groups, we are moving in the opposite direction, at least in some places, and more relevantly for this discussion, that politics of oppression is normative in the right-wing party here. Graham's essay is explicitly aimed at the left, yet effectively elucidates the precise tactics and goals of the right.
- temp8964 5y ago
  - NoraCodes 5y ago
    > pushing back against those dangerous radical ideas are not going to lead to "roll back" of any rights. I am referring specifically to Thomas looking to overturn Obergefell [1], TN trying to legalize child marriage [2], and current Republican efforts to reduce the effectiveness of the ADA. These are concrete examples of the right attempting to roll back certain rights. > do you agree 100% with critical race theory? It's an academic framework, not a set of policy goals, and I didn't study that in my CS curriculum, so I can't really speak to it. Can you? > do you agree 100% with LGBTQ activists? The vast majority of the policies they propose seem quite reasonable, yes. 1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willingness-to-overturn-obergefell-v-hodges/ https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi... 2: https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/ https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-l...

rayiner 5y ago

> reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right. Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders. Attempting to argue that the battles being fought today—fighting laws regulating private conduct in bedrooms versus teaching third graders about sexuality—is disingenuous. So is overlooking that the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester. > The best way to make sure people are not fired for speech is not to make it unacceptable for minorities to argue vehemently with their oppressors; Oh please. Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement. Elizabeth Warren’s voters in the Democratic Primary were about as white as Donald Trump’s (85%).

NoraCodes 5y ago
> how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1] > the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. [2] 1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willingness-to-overturn-obergefell-v-hodges/ https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi... 2: https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/ https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-l...
- rayiner 5y ago
  > More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1] This is a complete misreading of that opinion. Note that both Thomas and Alito concurred in the denial of cert. They said nothing of overturning Obergefell, but criticized the process by which it was done—by judicial fiat rather than legislation. Specifically, this meant that the legislature had no ability to consider and address religious objections. Thomas and Alito’s opinion not only didn’t call for Obergefell to be overturned, but are completely mainstream compared to other developed counties. The year after Obergefell, the EU Court of Human Rights ruled that the express right to marriage contained in the European Convention on Human Rights did not cover same sex marriage. EU countries all enacted same sex marriage through legislation—and they included various protections for religious liberty—exactly the process that Alito and Thomas said should have been followed. Switzerland only legalized it last year, and it’s still not legal in Italy. > the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. Meanwhile Colorado just legalized killing babies right up until birth.

steve76 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rilezg 5y ago

Great points. I would also highlight the following: > The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. I would offer the analogy of a broken (analog) clock. If a broken clock says the time is ten o’clock, and the time actually is ten o’clock, it is more important to note that the clock is broken than that the clock is correct. Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct. Critics of 'intolerance'/'cancel culture'/'heresy' often invoke truth in their arguments. They miss that the phenomenon has nothing to do with the truth of an out-of-context statement, rather it is about whether a person should be trusted.

NoraCodes 5y ago
> Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct. This is a great analogy, but I'd go even further than this; someone can say something which is true, but in context use it to signal harmful intent. Saying "you know, that last commit from Jane was awful" while venting about bad process over lunch with a good friend is very different than saying "the last code Jane committed was awful" in a meeting about hiring the team's second female employee - even if it's absolutely true.
- rilezg 5y ago
  Agreed. I was just imagining people posting publicly on social media, but good to say that situational context/audience also matters a ton when understanding a given statement. There is often much unspoken nuance/implications.
alanlammiman 5y ago
Thank you - I was familiar with 'a broken clock is right twice a day', but hadn't considered the analogy with prejudiced statements before. Useful

moolcool 5y ago

> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right Good point! The "problem" is often framed that society is full of adult-babies who can't be disagreed with without dire consequence. But is it at all possible that it's just the case that in recent years people have just felt more empowered to tout anti-social ideas which are worthy of scorn in the first place? There's quite a bit of evidence for the latter (January 6, Charlottesville, Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers).

version_five 5y ago

> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right I see the former (and maybe the latter, I honestly don't pay too much attention), but my interpretation is that a major culprit for any reversals in rights is the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance (which we had essentially achieved) to ridiculous "you're actively protesting with us or your against us" proportions that have caused the pushback. Just to add, in principle I'm against > anti-"critical race theory" laws and "don't say gay" laws even if they are mischaracterized to a large extent. But I see them as the latest escalation in response to provocation from the left. They were not written in a vacuum.

NoraCodes 5y ago
> the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance [...] to ridiculous [...] proportions that have caused the pushback. This is the equivalent of the schoolyard bully saying "I wouldn't have hit him if he hadn't asked for his lunch money back."
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't really want to debate you in analogy space, but what I said was equivalent to "the bully already gave you your lunch money back, but you're not happy with that anymore and stand there continuing to taunt him and asking for more money (or to acknowledge his priviledge or something)." My comment was giving my perception, anyway, I'm not trying to persuade.

nabla9 5y ago

PG's essays have smug 'fleeting above it all' tone. He gives the impression that he is not talking about himself or his in-group. There is kind of unsaid hint. More than 1,500 books have been banned in public schools, and a U.S. House panel asks why https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/04/09/more-than-1500-books-have-been-banned-in-public-schools-and-a-u-s-house-panel-asks-why/ https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/04/09/more-than-1500-books...

AlexTrask 5y ago

I think that Mr.Graham is not talking about rights and progress. curl -sb -H "http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html" | grep "right" one will be the last.<br><br>There are aggressively conventional-minded people on both the right come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine when, like the medieval church, they say "Damn right we're banning

NoraCodes 5y ago
`grep` is not the solution to every problem, friend. Not using exactly the same words does not mean we are not discussing the same topic.