7 ms·

How We Kill Geniuses

45 points by antiform 18y ago

joubert 18y ago
Talk about superstition.
- dasil003 18y ago
  Why must hackers be so literal with everything? Just talking about inspiration as coming from an external entity doesn't imply superstition, it doesn't mean somebody has strong faith-based beliefs about the exact nature of spirits and little green people. If you're willing to loosen your grip on the necessity for all ideas to be fact-based, and let some of the fuzzy in, the idea of a muse can serve as a useful perspective on the creative process. It's a hell of lot more useful than sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with statistical analysis. Even hackers have muses.
  - joubert 18y ago
    "...we should view the brilliance as a gift from an unknowable outside source..." I'm OK with fuzziness, but mysticism appals me.
    - dasil003 18y ago
      Why? Because people use it to take advantage of other people?
      - gnaritas 18y ago
        As if that alone isn't enough reason.
        unalone 18y ago
        Precisely. Any artist that thinks his mind isn't responsible for the beautiful things they create is doing himself a disservice. Perhaps you will never fully understand your mind, but that's a testament to the power of your mind, not a sign that a divine being is necessary. Frank Zappa had an excellent quote about this. When discussing spiritualism in music with a fellow musician, he said: "Look, these are just instruments. Find out what the range is, and start writing." And that's what it is. Writing music is difficult, and requires a degree of brilliance to come out with even a comparatively mediocre song, but there's no magic to it. It takes work and thought. It doesn't take superstition.
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
        yters 18y ago
        Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation? Even if we start with your premise, that it's only the person's brain, the brain itself is an amalgamate of many, many other things, very few we have direct responsibility for. So, even then, it doesn't make sense to take full responsibility for any genius we may possess.
        unalone 18y ago
        I find that a very repugnant attitude. No, you don't live in a vacuum. Newton was indeed standing on the shoulders of giants. But to go from there to saying you don't deserve responsibility for what you've done is a grossly illogical step to take. You could argue that Zappa did everything because of circumstance. You could make a good and utterly meaningless case because of that, that everything is responsible for everything. It's good because it's generic enough to be obvious; it's meaningless because if everything causes everything it's the same as nothing causing anything. In Zappa's case particularly: I know of no other musician that learned music through modernist composers and then translated that into rock music, who started off playing drums in a small band, took control of that band, taught himself guitar and became a virtuoso, and produced 90 albums in about 30 years in every genre imaginable. Nobody even comes close in that regard, and nobody has ever done anything like it. So, who's responsible for that genius? The record stores, for selling albums that caught Zappa's eye? Zappa's parents, for letting him buy records? The band members who ducked out and let Zappa take control? Those aren't genius acts. The genius is the thing that Zappa provided that came from him and him alone. Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation? Shakespeare didn't. Joyce didn't. Beckett didn't. The author of my favorite novel, Daniel Handler, is quoted as saying something to the effect that the only sacred thing about his writings is that he took the time to revise them. Bach wrote for the church but I've never read something saying that he was merely writing for God. The attitude stated here, that genius comes from an outside force, is incredibly rare. I've never heard anybody who's made anything truly extraordinary crediting anybody but themselves. The act of creation requires ego above anything else.
        dasil003 18y ago
        People use anything and everything to take advantage of other people. That was my point. If I came on here and started saying how we need to get rid of computer networks because they just provide more mechanisms of control, I would be downvoted to oblivion. Painting mysticism as bad because of how some people us it against the gullible is pretty poor reason to be "appalled" by it, but it's one that happens to appeal to the biases of the hacker mind. But if you want to do more than pay lip service to objectivity you ought to think it over a little more carefully.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        As should you. Computer networks are not used primarily for controlling other people. Mysticism, and more generally all forms of religion, have the primary purpose of controlling people, of enforcing approved behavioral patterns among the general populace. Ignorance of such a very basic thing as what is and what isn't real is an appalling state to purposely manipulate people into and is more than enough to damn all such practices.
        dasil003 18y ago
        But they were not created for this purpose (except Scientology). It's a fair jab at organized religion, but when you lump all mysticism together like that you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        I disagree, they were created for exactly this purpose. Religion was our first real form of government, its very purpose is to control people by controlling what they think and how they behave. Ignorance is ignorance, organized or not, and just as easily used to manipulate people. Mysticism is appalling because because it embraces ignorance and irrational magical thinking. You may find this OK, but I assert that it's bad, and worse, dangerous.
    - MaysonL 18y ago
      Mysticism with no empirical component is dangerous - but if you read that as a practical suggestion it will work a lot better. I.e.: do the work, don't wait for flashes of inspiration, and don't think that if you don't have any such flashes, that you're a stupid failure, or that all you have to do is have a great idea.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    'sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with statistical analysis.' Or taking excessively precise measurements of the shape of people's heads. ;-)
  - omouse 18y ago
    The only muse necessary is sitting your ass down and actually beginning the process of creation. The muse is some mystical bullshit that we feed one another to make things look like magic. No one wants to hear the dirty details of creating something because, for some reason, it ruins the image of the final result.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  I think what the article is saying is that it might be better for your creativity to believe (or act as if you believed) that your creativity doesn't really come from you (regardless of whether or not it does or not). It's a Jedi-mind-trick thing.
  - cmars232 18y ago
    That reminds me of Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager).
jobeirne 18y ago
What exactly the hell is a "quantum equation"?
- ramchip 18y ago
  Discrete mathematics ;)
jwesley 18y ago
Everyone here on HN is genius, so even if a few get knocked off there are plenty to step up and replace them.
stuntgoat 18y ago
I'll take two 16 ounce Mystical Fairy Juices and a two cookies, please.
ojbyrne 18y ago
From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight."
- mynameishere 18y ago
  That book features something I don't think I've ever seen on amazon: All three top (front page) reviews are one-starred. Not that amazon reviewers are perfect, but that's pretty rare for a book by a "genius".
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    I've seen that before twice: in both cases, it meant that it steps on someone's or some group's ego or politics, and then there's no small brigade of internet trolls sent out to deliver Amazon justice. I've never seen that in fiction, though.
    - ojbyrne 18y ago
      I gave a one-star review to Sarah Lacy's book on Web 2.0. It wasn't politics as much as truly shoddy journalism. She attributed thoughts and opinions to me without actually asking what I thought on the subject (she was basically fed info from digg PR). My negative review probably looked like a PR thing, when in fact it was a personal reaction to plain old shoddy work.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- wallflower 18y ago
  Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times: "I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest." "There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently – sometimes radically differently. " http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm Submitting essay link for what it's worth..
jballanc 18y ago
I'll go out on a limb (especially since this is HN! run by YC!!): entrepreneurship is killing genius. In my lifetime I've witnessed the slow slide from blue sky research being rampant in corporate America around the time I was born (early '80s), to being found only in academia ('90s), to even academia being expected to turn a profit ('00s). My university even has a vice-Provost in charge of turning research into new businesses. Not every good idea can make a profit. When you demand that all ideas do, you'll be missing out...
- noonespecial 18y ago
  Genius created the apple computer. Entrepreneurship brought it to the rest of us. There's probably about the same amount of genius as ever, there's just a lot more people hawking it these days.
  - wernerv0nbraun 18y ago
    yeah, the genius in visiting PARC
  - maxwell 18y ago
    Depends on how you're defining it, but attributing products to "genius" sounds awfully like a creationist fallacy. It's interesting that you should cite Apple; Woz's work on the Apple I and their current design process both seem exceptionally darwinian.
    - noonespecial 18y ago
      I'm going to have to disagree with that. It took surprising insight for the Woz to look at the same parts catalogs as everyone else and then (without even having the parts at first) do such extraordinary things with them. Many people had access to the parts, more experience, and the technical ability to do this earlier, they just didn't. The iterative improvement that Apple uses to design and perfect products is somewhat darwinian but it lacks the random mutation and recombinative aspects that define evolution. I'd have to say (since the water has already been clouded by this new little corollary of Godwin's law) that it more nearly approximates intelligent design.
10ren 18y ago
Much of achievement is circumstantial: a product takes off because people need it (which is something outside the product). You notice a connection between two things, because you knew about them both and happened to be thinking about them. You can't arrange to discover things that are unknown - by definition. All you can do is be out there looking, doing things, trying things. Inspiration strikes he who is at the typewriter
motoko 18y ago
Briefly: based on anecdotes, some may be more creative if they psychologically attribute their creativity outside their ego
- l0stman 18y ago
  Frankly, I don't know. It seems the most creative people are also self-confident. They're both arrogant and humble. Plus, we should rate someone's achievement by his best output, not his thousands failures.
drinian 18y ago
Interesting starting point to a real problem with "genius," but not a great strategy. If she's arguing that internalizing blame for not being constantly brilliant or being able to maximize your brilliance puts undue stress on amazing people, then maybe learning to live with that fact rather externalizing the blame to something imaginary would be a better idea. That way, you will at least be comfortable enough with your own mind to maybe begin exploring real ways to improve your genius productivity (see also: http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_anarchomic_released.html http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_...).
nostrademons 18y ago
I dunno. I think it's wrong to view genius as being an inherent quality of a person. I think it's equally wrong to view it as an external force that just happens to visit people at certain times. In my experience, genius is the result of turning over a problem in your head over and over, learning all the angles, and then relaxing and forgetting about it for a while. While you're forgetting about it, your brain can make subconscious connections between everything you've learned that seem to come from nowhere. But you have to have the background knowledge. I find that I have tons of creative ideas when I'm just starting out a project. They almost all turn out to be bad ones. Then once I explore a bit, learn everything there is to know about the area, I'll occasionally get a decent idea. If I don't think too hard about it.
DaniFong 18y ago
This article reminded me of the story of Robert Oppenheimer. In that case, at least, I think the story of how we destroy our heroes rings true. If any of you enjoy biographies, stories of scientific and engineering heroism, and haven't read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," please do. It is an extraordinary story.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Oppenheimer himself at his 1954 security clearance hearings denied being a member of the Communist Party, but identified himself as a fellow traveler, which he defined as someone who agrees with many of the goals of Communism, but without being willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist party apparatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer Oppenheimer destroyed himself, allying himself with the only orthodoxy [but somehow being not orthodox] that was more murderous than fascism.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    How is agreeing with some of the goals of an othodoxy the same as allying with it?
    - homme 18y ago
      Further, how is an orthodoxy/political belief murderous? I thought only people could commit murder.
    - mynameishere 18y ago
      Oh please. If somebody is a "fellow traveler" of Nazism, he would be permanently banned from public life.

45 points by antiform 18y ago

joubert 18y ago

Talk about superstition.

dasil003 18y ago
Why must hackers be so literal with everything? Just talking about inspiration as coming from an external entity doesn't imply superstition, it doesn't mean somebody has strong faith-based beliefs about the exact nature of spirits and little green people. If you're willing to loosen your grip on the necessity for all ideas to be fact-based, and let some of the fuzzy in, the idea of a muse can serve as a useful perspective on the creative process. It's a hell of lot more useful than sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with statistical analysis. Even hackers have muses.
- joubert 18y ago
  "...we should view the brilliance as a gift from an unknowable outside source..." I'm OK with fuzziness, but mysticism appals me.
  - dasil003 18y ago
    Why? Because people use it to take advantage of other people?
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      As if that alone isn't enough reason.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Precisely. Any artist that thinks his mind isn't responsible for the beautiful things they create is doing himself a disservice. Perhaps you will never fully understand your mind, but that's a testament to the power of your mind, not a sign that a divine being is necessary. Frank Zappa had an excellent quote about this. When discussing spiritualism in music with a fellow musician, he said: "Look, these are just instruments. Find out what the range is, and start writing." And that's what it is. Writing music is difficult, and requires a degree of brilliance to come out with even a comparatively mediocre song, but there's no magic to it. It takes work and thought. It doesn't take superstition.
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
        yters 18y ago
        Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation? Even if we start with your premise, that it's only the person's brain, the brain itself is an amalgamate of many, many other things, very few we have direct responsibility for. So, even then, it doesn't make sense to take full responsibility for any genius we may possess.
        unalone 18y ago
        I find that a very repugnant attitude. No, you don't live in a vacuum. Newton was indeed standing on the shoulders of giants. But to go from there to saying you don't deserve responsibility for what you've done is a grossly illogical step to take. You could argue that Zappa did everything because of circumstance. You could make a good and utterly meaningless case because of that, that everything is responsible for everything. It's good because it's generic enough to be obvious; it's meaningless because if everything causes everything it's the same as nothing causing anything. In Zappa's case particularly: I know of no other musician that learned music through modernist composers and then translated that into rock music, who started off playing drums in a small band, took control of that band, taught himself guitar and became a virtuoso, and produced 90 albums in about 30 years in every genre imaginable. Nobody even comes close in that regard, and nobody has ever done anything like it. So, who's responsible for that genius? The record stores, for selling albums that caught Zappa's eye? Zappa's parents, for letting him buy records? The band members who ducked out and let Zappa take control? Those aren't genius acts. The genius is the thing that Zappa provided that came from him and him alone. Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation? Shakespeare didn't. Joyce didn't. Beckett didn't. The author of my favorite novel, Daniel Handler, is quoted as saying something to the effect that the only sacred thing about his writings is that he took the time to revise them. Bach wrote for the church but I've never read something saying that he was merely writing for God. The attitude stated here, that genius comes from an outside force, is incredibly rare. I've never heard anybody who's made anything truly extraordinary crediting anybody but themselves. The act of creation requires ego above anything else.
      - dasil003 18y ago
        People use anything and everything to take advantage of other people. That was my point. If I came on here and started saying how we need to get rid of computer networks because they just provide more mechanisms of control, I would be downvoted to oblivion. Painting mysticism as bad because of how some people us it against the gullible is pretty poor reason to be "appalled" by it, but it's one that happens to appeal to the biases of the hacker mind. But if you want to do more than pay lip service to objectivity you ought to think it over a little more carefully.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        As should you. Computer networks are not used primarily for controlling other people. Mysticism, and more generally all forms of religion, have the primary purpose of controlling people, of enforcing approved behavioral patterns among the general populace. Ignorance of such a very basic thing as what is and what isn't real is an appalling state to purposely manipulate people into and is more than enough to damn all such practices.
        dasil003 18y ago
        But they were not created for this purpose (except Scientology). It's a fair jab at organized religion, but when you lump all mysticism together like that you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        I disagree, they were created for exactly this purpose. Religion was our first real form of government, its very purpose is to control people by controlling what they think and how they behave. Ignorance is ignorance, organized or not, and just as easily used to manipulate people. Mysticism is appalling because because it embraces ignorance and irrational magical thinking. You may find this OK, but I assert that it's bad, and worse, dangerous.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Mysticism with no empirical component is dangerous - but if you read that as a practical suggestion it will work a lot better. I.e.: do the work, don't wait for flashes of inspiration, and don't think that if you don't have any such flashes, that you're a stupid failure, or that all you have to do is have a great idea.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  'sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with statistical analysis.' Or taking excessively precise measurements of the shape of people's heads. ;-)
- omouse 18y ago
  The only muse necessary is sitting your ass down and actually beginning the process of creation. The muse is some mystical bullshit that we feed one another to make things look like magic. No one wants to hear the dirty details of creating something because, for some reason, it ruins the image of the final result.
Hexstream 18y ago
I think what the article is saying is that it might be better for your creativity to believe (or act as if you believed) that your creativity doesn't really come from you (regardless of whether or not it does or not). It's a Jedi-mind-trick thing.
- cmars232 18y ago
  That reminds me of Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager).

jobeirne 18y ago

What exactly the hell is a "quantum equation"?

ramchip 18y ago
Discrete mathematics ;)

jwesley 18y ago

Everyone here on HN is genius, so even if a few get knocked off there are plenty to step up and replace them.

stuntgoat 18y ago

I'll take two 16 ounce Mystical Fairy Juices and a two cookies, please.

ojbyrne 18y ago

From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight."

mynameishere 18y ago
That book features something I don't think I've ever seen on amazon: All three top (front page) reviews are one-starred. Not that amazon reviewers are perfect, but that's pretty rare for a book by a "genius".
- DaniFong 18y ago
  I've seen that before twice: in both cases, it meant that it steps on someone's or some group's ego or politics, and then there's no small brigade of internet trolls sent out to deliver Amazon justice. I've never seen that in fiction, though.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    I gave a one-star review to Sarah Lacy's book on Web 2.0. It wasn't politics as much as truly shoddy journalism. She attributed thoughts and opinions to me without actually asking what I thought on the subject (she was basically fed info from digg PR). My negative review probably looked like a PR thing, when in fact it was a personal reaction to plain old shoddy work.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
wallflower 18y ago
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times: "I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest." "There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently – sometimes radically differently. " http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm Submitting essay link for what it's worth..

jballanc 18y ago

I'll go out on a limb (especially since this is HN! run by YC!!): entrepreneurship is killing genius. In my lifetime I've witnessed the slow slide from blue sky research being rampant in corporate America around the time I was born (early '80s), to being found only in academia ('90s), to even academia being expected to turn a profit ('00s). My university even has a vice-Provost in charge of turning research into new businesses. Not every good idea can make a profit. When you demand that all ideas do, you'll be missing out...

noonespecial 18y ago
Genius created the apple computer. Entrepreneurship brought it to the rest of us. There's probably about the same amount of genius as ever, there's just a lot more people hawking it these days.
- wernerv0nbraun 18y ago
  yeah, the genius in visiting PARC
- maxwell 18y ago
  Depends on how you're defining it, but attributing products to "genius" sounds awfully like a creationist fallacy. It's interesting that you should cite Apple; Woz's work on the Apple I and their current design process both seem exceptionally darwinian.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    I'm going to have to disagree with that. It took surprising insight for the Woz to look at the same parts catalogs as everyone else and then (without even having the parts at first) do such extraordinary things with them. Many people had access to the parts, more experience, and the technical ability to do this earlier, they just didn't. The iterative improvement that Apple uses to design and perfect products is somewhat darwinian but it lacks the random mutation and recombinative aspects that define evolution. I'd have to say (since the water has already been clouded by this new little corollary of Godwin's law) that it more nearly approximates intelligent design.

10ren 18y ago

Much of achievement is circumstantial: a product takes off because people need it (which is something outside the product). You notice a connection between two things, because you knew about them both and happened to be thinking about them. You can't arrange to discover things that are unknown - by definition. All you can do is be out there looking, doing things, trying things. Inspiration strikes he who is at the typewriter

motoko 18y ago

Briefly: based on anecdotes, some may be more creative if they psychologically attribute their creativity outside their ego

l0stman 18y ago
Frankly, I don't know. It seems the most creative people are also self-confident. They're both arrogant and humble. Plus, we should rate someone's achievement by his best output, not his thousands failures.

drinian 18y ago

Interesting starting point to a real problem with "genius," but not a great strategy. If she's arguing that internalizing blame for not being constantly brilliant or being able to maximize your brilliance puts undue stress on amazing people, then maybe learning to live with that fact rather externalizing the blame to something imaginary would be a better idea. That way, you will at least be comfortable enough with your own mind to maybe begin exploring real ways to improve your genius productivity (see also: http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_anarchomic_released.html http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_...).

nostrademons 18y ago

I dunno. I think it's wrong to view genius as being an inherent quality of a person. I think it's equally wrong to view it as an external force that just happens to visit people at certain times. In my experience, genius is the result of turning over a problem in your head over and over, learning all the angles, and then relaxing and forgetting about it for a while. While you're forgetting about it, your brain can make subconscious connections between everything you've learned that seem to come from nowhere. But you have to have the background knowledge. I find that I have tons of creative ideas when I'm just starting out a project. They almost all turn out to be bad ones. Then once I explore a bit, learn everything there is to know about the area, I'll occasionally get a decent idea. If I don't think too hard about it.

DaniFong 18y ago

This article reminded me of the story of Robert Oppenheimer. In that case, at least, I think the story of how we destroy our heroes rings true. If any of you enjoy biographies, stories of scientific and engineering heroism, and haven't read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," please do. It is an extraordinary story.

mynameishere 18y ago
Oppenheimer himself at his 1954 security clearance hearings denied being a member of the Communist Party, but identified himself as a fellow traveler, which he defined as someone who agrees with many of the goals of Communism, but without being willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist party apparatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer Oppenheimer destroyed himself, allying himself with the only orthodoxy [but somehow being not orthodox] that was more murderous than fascism.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  How is agreeing with some of the goals of an othodoxy the same as allying with it?
  - homme 18y ago
    Further, how is an orthodoxy/political belief murderous? I thought only people could commit murder.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    Oh please. If somebody is a "fellow traveler" of Nazism, he would be permanently banned from public life.