4 ms·

> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here Yeah this bothered me. His stance on this seems so defensive and personal and he gives very f

by dnfa 4y ago

> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here Yeah this bothered me. His stance on this seems so defensive and personal and he gives very few examples of heretical ideas. It makes this essay more of a boomer diatribe than anything else imo.

UncleMeat 4y ago
It allows anybody who reads the piece to apply their own specifics to it. It means that if they hold any "heretical" beliefs, they can assume that PG supports them.
- plorkyeran 4y ago
  Or on the flip side, it means that the reader can assume that PG holds whatever unflattering "heretical" beliefs they are opposed to.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. There's enough insinuation here that I don't think that my grandma would assume PG is advocating for anti-religiosity, for example.
- morelisp 4y ago
  On the other hand, you can spot Andreessen, Haidt, and Lehmann as his reviewers (and similar personalities on previous articles) and have a pretty good idea what views he's actually talking about.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?s=20&t=-UQcLczFZ1Hr759ygi1CNg https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
- paisawalla 4y ago
  Not even 500px away from here, there's this exchange from you, contradicting your clever tweet: > Can [ignoring ideas I don't like] get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law? > If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. [Context: "We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others."]
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    What's the contradiction here I don't see it?
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      "Republicans aren't getting cancelled for describing their political policies, they're getting cancelled for being racist or x-phobic" but then, "It is an utter moral necessity to not extend civility to or engage with Republicans on issues like healthcare or police reform, but instead do everything necessary to prevent their ideas from being heard or discussed." I'm sure your next point is that everything conservatives believe reduces to wrongthink x-isms, and therefore everything is permissible, and you probably are unable even then to see the inconsistency. But it seems like others have taken note.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Oh, I see how you could read it that way, yes. Here let me refute some of these assumptions: - I don't assert that opposing these things is a moral necessity for everyone, but do find it so for myself. - I extend civility usually but not always, it depends on the circumstances. If being uncivil furthers my goals or feels correct then I will do it. - I don't oppose "republicans" generally but I oppose specific harmful acts, including speech in some instances. "Engagement with" is too broad: I'm willing to (and do!) have coffee and discuss any issue privately, but may vehemently oppose the same conversation happening as a public debate, for example. - Absolutely not everything is permissible and there are many more lines I won't cross than ones I will. Just for a concrete example, if you read through my history a little you'll notice I fucking hate the police. What you wouldn't guess is my home AA group is all cops except for me. Many years ago I needed help and didn't realize that's what it was and they helped me and I stayed. None of us hide any part of ourselves there. There are men I have opposed in armed conflict in the street and then met with mutual love and grace in the room. I see very clearly the humanity of my enemies but nonetheless find I must oppose them. I am rarely truly sure I'm on the right path, but I feel compelled to act and I hope for forgiveness for my mistakes and harms.

by dnfa 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

It allows anybody who reads the piece to apply their own specifics to it. It means that if they hold any "heretical" beliefs, they can assume that PG supports them.

plorkyeran 4y ago
Or on the flip side, it means that the reader can assume that PG holds whatever unflattering "heretical" beliefs they are opposed to.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. There's enough insinuation here that I don't think that my grandma would assume PG is advocating for anti-religiosity, for example.
morelisp 4y ago
On the other hand, you can spot Andreessen, Haidt, and Lehmann as his reviewers (and similar personalities on previous articles) and have a pretty good idea what views he's actually talking about.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?s=20&t=-UQcLczFZ1Hr759ygi1CNg https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

paisawalla 4y ago
Not even 500px away from here, there's this exchange from you, contradicting your clever tweet: > Can [ignoring ideas I don't like] get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law? > If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. [Context: "We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others."]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  What's the contradiction here I don't see it?
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    "Republicans aren't getting cancelled for describing their political policies, they're getting cancelled for being racist or x-phobic" but then, "It is an utter moral necessity to not extend civility to or engage with Republicans on issues like healthcare or police reform, but instead do everything necessary to prevent their ideas from being heard or discussed." I'm sure your next point is that everything conservatives believe reduces to wrongthink x-isms, and therefore everything is permissible, and you probably are unable even then to see the inconsistency. But it seems like others have taken note.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Oh, I see how you could read it that way, yes. Here let me refute some of these assumptions: - I don't assert that opposing these things is a moral necessity for everyone, but do find it so for myself. - I extend civility usually but not always, it depends on the circumstances. If being uncivil furthers my goals or feels correct then I will do it. - I don't oppose "republicans" generally but I oppose specific harmful acts, including speech in some instances. "Engagement with" is too broad: I'm willing to (and do!) have coffee and discuss any issue privately, but may vehemently oppose the same conversation happening as a public debate, for example. - Absolutely not everything is permissible and there are many more lines I won't cross than ones I will. Just for a concrete example, if you read through my history a little you'll notice I fucking hate the police. What you wouldn't guess is my home AA group is all cops except for me. Many years ago I needed help and didn't realize that's what it was and they helped me and I stayed. None of us hide any part of ourselves there. There are men I have opposed in armed conflict in the street and then met with mutual love and grace in the room. I see very clearly the humanity of my enemies but nonetheless find I must oppose them. I am rarely truly sure I'm on the right path, but I feel compelled to act and I hope for forgiveness for my mistakes and harms.