TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Orthodox Privilege

610 pointsby razinalmost 5 years ago

78 comments

seibeljalmost 5 years ago
What has been especially frustrating to me is identity politics, where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you <i>must</i> hold Ideas X, Y, and Z because those <i>must</i> be the views you hold as a member of those groups. It completely removes all agency and individuality and instead classifies you entirely as a set of labels. The smallest minority truly is the individual, and every individual can make their own decisions regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
评论 #23847052 未加载
评论 #23847875 未加载
评论 #23846725 未加载
评论 #23849676 未加载
评论 #23847322 未加载
评论 #23850869 未加载
评论 #23848374 未加载
评论 #23846357 未加载
评论 #23847833 未加载
评论 #23847686 未加载
评论 #23849280 未加载
评论 #23847976 未加载
评论 #23847978 未加载
评论 #23846466 未加载
评论 #23850610 未加载
评论 #23846903 未加载
评论 #23847071 未加载
评论 #23847735 未加载
评论 #23848323 未加载
评论 #23846621 未加载
评论 #23848110 未加载
munificentalmost 5 years ago
In all of the many arguments swirling around cancel culture, I have yet to see anyone raise what I think is the most important distinction: <i>good faith</i>.<p>Open debate and public disagreement is a healthy vital tool of progress when the claims and argument are made in good faith. When both parties believe their position is true and is good for the world, and their arguments for it are genuine, then I think it slows progress to cancel them.<p>But if you assume <i>all</i> arguments are in good faith, then you leave the public sphere ripe for exploitation. This is what white surpremacists and others have clicked to recently. A bad actor can exploit a presumption of good faith to add legitimacy to their position. &quot;Look, famous person X rebutted me. My claim must be at least significant enough to be worth rebutting.&quot; Or they can use it to make the other party look bad by sea-lioning. &quot;I am merely politely asking questions. Why are you so angry? Aren&#x27;t you able to control your feelings?&quot;<p>&quot;Cancel culture&quot; and deplatforming are important tools to defend against these bad faith exploitive uses of public communication.<p>The challenge is that as we get increasingly polarized and tribal and as the bad faith actors get more savvy, <i>everything</i> starts to look like a bad faith argument. And at some point, people start concluding that the only foolproof algorithm for determining if an argument is in bad faith is &quot;does it disagree with me?&quot; And then you start seeing the banhammer swung freely.<p>That in turn increases polarization and tribalism because good faith dissenters, people with middle ground positions, and people who aren&#x27;t sure where they stand self-censor to avoid taking friendly fire.<p>It is a very nasty feedback loop we&#x27;re in, exacerbated by the already bad feedback loops of social media AIs being trained to show us content we already agree with.
评论 #23849287 未加载
评论 #23849826 未加载
评论 #23848606 未加载
评论 #23849116 未加载
评论 #23849176 未加载
评论 #23853097 未加载
duxupalmost 5 years ago
Maybe I&#x27;ve internalized what &quot;orthodox privilege&quot; means but ... yes things that go against the grain often receive push back.<p>Is that bad? Isn&#x27;t that sometimes just the nature of having to prove a different idea in the face of another idea that may be proven?<p>On the other hand let&#x27;s say it is Orthodox Privilege then we get to the next step, give it a name and ... tell others they&#x27;re engaging in &#x27;orthodox privilege&#x27;?<p>Any kinda &#x27;you&#x27;re doing &lt;insert privilege term&gt;&#x27; seems like a non starter.<p>In the meantime anyone and everyone who gets push back seems to already feel they&#x27;re oppressed by &#x27;the system&#x27; or &#x27;the media&#x27; and anyone who views their ideas as poor somehow is biased, pushing an agenda, something is wrong with them.<p>I feel like a lot of &#x27;privilege&#x27; talk sort of leaked out of good &#x2F; valid ideas and areas of academic study and now are sort of used as a magic wand (or sometimes a baseball bat) that really don&#x27;t solve anything when talking to other people outside of say macro study and etc.
评论 #23846593 未加载
评论 #23846235 未加载
评论 #23846004 未加载
评论 #23845887 未加载
评论 #23847394 未加载
评论 #23847406 未加载
评论 #23847371 未加载
评论 #23846377 未加载
评论 #23847092 未加载
tenaciousDanielalmost 5 years ago
Good post. A point of clarification though: we are seeing (at least in America) the emergence of two orthodoxies&#x2F;conventions. Which of the two holds more institutional power is up for debate, and of course either side is going to say that the <i>other</i> is the one with all the power.
评论 #23845856 未加载
评论 #23846053 未加载
评论 #23851234 未加载
评论 #23845713 未加载
评论 #23846259 未加载
评论 #23849099 未加载
评论 #23845974 未加载
评论 #23845766 未加载
评论 #23846616 未加载
评论 #23845846 未加载
评论 #23846047 未加载
Kapuraalmost 5 years ago
pg has been opining about so-called &quot;cancel culture&quot; on twitter, and the last paragraph makes it clear that this entire post is his attempt to formulate a response:<p>&gt;Once you realize that orthodox privilege exists, a lot of other things become clearer. For example, how can it be that a large number of reasonable, intelligent people worry about something they call &quot;cancel culture,&quot; while other reasonable, intelligent people deny that it&#x27;s a problem? Once you understand the concept of orthodox privilege, it&#x27;s easy to see the source of this disagreement. If you believe there&#x27;s nothing true that you can&#x27;t say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.<p>&quot;Orthodox privilege&quot; is, he sees, why some people are not worried about being &quot;cancelled.&quot; In his mind, these people are saying what is considered correct, so they don&#x27;t fear cancellation. Perhaps this is true for some people, but I think that it is inventing (or at least overscoping) a phenomenon to answer a question that has another, simpler answer.<p>Some people are able to honestly assess their past positions and statements, understand why things could be construed as problematic, and make efforts to better themselves. That, and a sense of what conversations are appropriate for public forums versus informal conversation over drinks, act as pretty great cancellation buffers.
评论 #23847580 未加载
评论 #23847556 未加载
评论 #23849412 未加载
评论 #23847964 未加载
评论 #23847701 未加载
评论 #23850277 未加载
getpostalmost 5 years ago
Is there a high-pitched sound, or not? If the people in power say there&#x27;s no high-pitched sound, and the people out of power are suffering from the high-pitched sound, what is &quot;true&quot;? There is &quot;a truth,&quot; or &quot;two truths,&quot; but not &quot;the truth.&quot;<p>The ideal of polite conversion is that people who disagree can come to a conclusion, a &quot;truth,&quot; that was previously inaccessible to either of them. Asserting &quot;the truth,&quot; is a dominator paradigm privilege.
评论 #23847250 未加载
评论 #23847162 未加载
评论 #23847348 未加载
评论 #23848015 未加载
评论 #23846619 未加载
评论 #23847188 未加载
scarmigalmost 5 years ago
One interesting part of living in China has been the different sets of orthodoxies and heresies people have. Things that are unspeakable in the US are conventional wisdom here, and things that are unspeakable in China are conventional wisdom in the US.<p>Of course, the conventional wisdom in the US as it exists among upper-middle class, college-educated white folk in 2020 is exactly right about everything, but it&#x27;s interesting to see just how wrong people in a different society can be without even realizing it.
评论 #23847683 未加载
评论 #23846347 未加载
评论 #23852488 未加载
NhanHalmost 5 years ago
Related, and still one of pg&#x27;s best writing imo: &quot;What you can&#x27;t say&quot; - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html</a><p>This one, in additional with the previous essay about 2 different kind of centrists really make me curious of what unorthodox opinions PG is holding and can&#x27;t say right now.
评论 #23845724 未加载
评论 #23845940 未加载
评论 #23849153 未加载
评论 #23845723 未加载
评论 #23846003 未加载
t0astbreadalmost 5 years ago
A lot of this seems to focus on ideas and worldviews but I think there&#x27;s a more general truth in Orthodox Privilege: If you&#x27;re in the majority it&#x27;s easy to overestimate the quality of life in the minority (and this applies to many kinds of majorities and minorities).<p>I think a lot of politics (at least in my country) also work this way. Simply by not addressing real problems, a politician can look like a winner because hey, there are no problems when they&#x27;re in charge! Addressing problems not only becomes a political liability, it&#x27;s in fact hardly possible at all because the majority of people wouldn&#x27;t believe you if you told them about it and would accuse you of making up problems.
评论 #23846880 未加载
bob33212almost 5 years ago
&quot;Joining as employee number 15 or later at a startup pretty much guarantees that you will get screwed over on equity if the company needs to raise money again&quot;<p>Can you say that and also still be accepted to ycombinator?
评论 #23846441 未加载
rexreedalmost 5 years ago
Here&#x27;s something for you: HN has groupthink (er, I mean PG-branded Orthodox Privilege) in spades. If you agree with the Group (orthodoxy) you get upvotes and lots of kudos. If you don&#x27;t, you get downvotes and criticism.
评论 #23846648 未加载
评论 #23852260 未加载
otalmost 5 years ago
I&#x27;m not sure what the point of this post is. It says<p>&gt; And yet at every point in history, there were true things that would get you in terrible trouble to say. Is ours the first where this isn&#x27;t so? What an amazing coincidence that would be.<p>and then goes on to argue that saying certain things could get you in trouble. I&#x27;m sure that the orthodoxy-aligned people at any point in time believed that they couldn&#x27;t say anything that would get them in trouble as well.<p>So it may be an unfortunate dynamic, but the post contradicts itself in presenting it as a product of our time. If anything, things got better: in the past you&#x27;d be imprisoned or killed, today people yell at you on Twitter and in the worst case you may have to switch jobs.
评论 #23846983 未加载
评论 #23846581 未加载
everdrivealmost 5 years ago
I sometimes wonder if this is not just the novelty of social media, but rather the new normal. ie, perhaps social media will always be this divisive? This is a very limited metaphor, but it reminds me of how a moth circles around a flame. Usually, a moth would use the Moon (or Sun) to navigate, which is focused to infinity. The flame is close by, and the way the moth&#x27;s natural circuitry works causes it to malfunction. A straight line becomes an inward spiral, towards the flame.<p>The basic problems of social media are nothing new to human behavior: tribalism, moral judgement &#x2F; righteousness, extremist viewpoints.<p>But I wonder if it&#x27;s a bit like the moth and the flame. With so many extreme opinions from so many strangers, we begin spiraling to more extreme positions, and taking sides in a more extreme fashion. Under normal conditions extreme opinions can still exist, but they are usually tempered by contact with other people. Even when extremity existed in the past, it at least appeared to be stable over time. ie, you&#x27;d have single group with unified (albeit extreme) ideas. People are normally meant to be socially and morally judgemental. (to what degree, and about what is up for some debate, but as an animal we like to make moral judgements.) But, they&#x27;re also meant to find consensus within a community. Well, the internet breaks down some of that consensus building, while also introducing and amplifying more and more extreme positions. I really wonder that like the moth, social media breaks our normal intuition for social judgement and coalition building.<p>And lastly, I wonder if it&#x27;s any surprise that things seem to have gotten crazier since most have been on quarantine -- away from normal people, but glued to our screens. Maybe that&#x27;s just anecdotal on my part, though.
jes5199almost 5 years ago
ooh a bait and switch! I was going to talk about how people with different kinds of brains (you think anyone in this forum is on the autism spectrum? no?) have to code-switch and perform the normal cognitive style to be taken seriously...<p>but that’s not actually relevant, because this post is about “cancel culture”. Should a person get twitter mobbed for admitting that they’re a bigot? probably not! should a person who says “damn that sounds kinda bigoted” to someone famous get mobbed for saying <i>that</i> in public?? No I’d say no to that too.<p>but we’ve got both sides saying “my mob is good people telling the truth, your mob is cruel trolls running an inquisition” but somehow that devolves into saying “cancel cultures does&#x2F;doesn’t exist” as if that explained why your mob has the right to wield pitchforks and the other one doesn’t
评论 #23847890 未加载
baddoxalmost 5 years ago
&gt; It&#x27;s safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it&#x27;s currently acceptable to believe.<p>The premise is not sound. Not everyone who has a conventionally accepted idea has that idea because the idea is conventionally accepted. It could be, for example, that there is some other cause that leads to me having an idea and that idea being conventionally accepted.<p>As an obvious example, I don’t think that one plus one equals two because I observe that to be conventionally accepted. I have good reasons to think that’s true even if most people disagreed. And I certainly wouldn’t think anyone who disagrees was being discriminated against for having unconventional ideas.
评论 #23853471 未加载
carlisle_almost 5 years ago
This is such a strange post. Mr. Graham speaks in vague generalities, then finally hones in on a specific idea seemingly out of the blue:<p>&gt; For example, how can it be that a large number of reasonable, intelligent people worry about something they call &quot;cancel culture,&quot; while other reasonable, intelligent people deny that it&#x27;s a problem?<p>Why “cancel culture” when there’s any number of issues this is equally true for? Why is it only “reasonably intelligent people” oppose it in this example.<p>This post just seems intellectually lazy. Making sweeping generalizations and then throwing in some appeal to popularity is not a well made point.
评论 #23847091 未加载
woodruffwalmost 5 years ago
A glaring omission: the views and positions that paulg is (obliquely) referring to <i>just aren&#x27;t orthodox.</i> He&#x27;s upset that a small, vocal minority[1] is <i>challenging</i> a set of <i>orthodox</i> social norms that continue to enrich and empower him.<p>The average American is doesn&#x27;t read Twitter daily, and is somewhere between a moderate liberal and a moderate conservative[2]. <i>These</i> people represent orthodox privilege.<p>[1]: Case in point: they continue to lose primary elections within their own (ostensible) party.<p>[2]: On the American political scale, which is uniformly further &quot;right&quot; than European left-right divides.
评论 #23847382 未加载
评论 #23847324 未加载
评论 #23847570 未加载
评论 #23847373 未加载
评论 #23847381 未加载
评论 #23847483 未加载
评论 #23847453 未加载
analyst74almost 5 years ago
Internet mob rule definitely has its problems, but it&#x27;s also particularly disliked by people who previously had the &quot;Orthodox&quot; privilege, because losing privilege feels terrible, which can be summed as:<p>&quot;I used to be able to say anything honestly, now I can&#x27;t.&quot;
wbhardingalmost 5 years ago
The world has been hard up for terminology to describe what’s bad about the forces that have dragged down SSC and driven Weiss away from NYT. “Cancel culture” was a good start, as evidenced by those who have been rankled by the suggestion of its existence. My fave part of this essay is that it offers a shiny new tool, “orthodox privilege,” that allows us to enumerate the case for a countervailing force against this age of outrage.
评论 #23846519 未加载
not2balmost 5 years ago
I&#x27;m not impressed with this argument, which we are seeing more of these days. Expressing one&#x27;s opinion on controversial issues risks that people will be pissed off, but it isn&#x27;t just the originally expressed opinion that is &quot;free speech&quot;; the furious criticisms of the original opinion are also &quot;free speech&quot;. Refusing to associate with people because of their expressed opinions is also a right.<p>And there isn&#x27;t one orthodoxy, there are many. The range of opinions that can be expressed in the vicinity of Paul Graham without risking that he won&#x27;t fund your startup is very different from the range of opinions that an assistant professor going for tenure in a humanities department may express, but it&#x27;s not clear whether Graham is conscious of the orthodoxy he himself imposes, by his economic power.
评论 #23848462 未加载
muxlalmost 5 years ago
The core message of this article is that it&#x27;s possible for even large groups of people to be wrong about things and that those people won&#x27;t think they&#x27;re wrong (they&#x27;re wrong about being wrong). The author summarizes this mechanism as: these people are so accustomed to being &quot;right&quot; by appealing to consensus that they can&#x27;t imagine being wrong.<p>This argument seems to generalize not just to large groups but also to small ones. The problem I see is that in the case of large groups the author calls this &quot;privilege&quot; and in the case of small groups he doesn&#x27;t. Since the size of the group doesn&#x27;t really effect the nature of group orthodoxy and adherence the argument seems to collapse to &quot;large groups are privileged.&quot;<p>I agree that large groups are privileged but to claim that part of privilege is not being able to conceive of your group as being wrong seems tangential and potentially just incorrect.<p>Perhaps the author is assuming that people in small groups more frequently encounter other groups which (1) they disagree with (2) they eventually determine are right<p>but it isn&#x27;t obvious to me that (2) would be more likely to occur in a small group than in a large group. There have been fanatical large groups and small ones which do not tolerate deviation on certain points.
评论 #23848693 未加载
greenailalmost 5 years ago
Learning about the underlying theories of Postmodernism and Critical Theory helped me get a better understanding of some of the &quot;cancel culture&quot; behavior and illiberal-ism which seems to be trending. It has also helped me avoid falling into traps I would otherwise have blindly stumbled into.
评论 #23850868 未加载
ivankiriginalmost 5 years ago
&quot;Things you can&#x27;t say&quot; is interesting because the reason it&#x27;s dangerous is that a mob might react badly to it. Who is to say that the specific wave washing over social media will hit some people with this orthodox privilege or not?<p>I think you can mine these things by looking at diverse conversations - including those you don&#x27;t find online. What sentence would you be afraid might be misinterpreted?
评论 #23845757 未加载
donatjalmost 5 years ago
Paul Graham as always says the things I want to say, more clearly and concise, and with the privilege wealth brings of being able to more freely speak.
rexreedalmost 5 years ago
Sounds like just another way of saying &quot;groupthink&quot;.<p>It&#x27;s a rebranding of the concept of groupthink which has been around as long as hominids have been in groups and have been thinking. It&#x27;s not a form of privilege. Rather, it&#x27;s the nature of our brains. We are social animals. We prefer not being ostracized. We self-censor as a result. This is not a privilege. People who groupthink are not more privileged than those who don&#x27;t. The only privilege is the ability to say &quot;yes&quot; to the group more frequently.
Isamualmost 5 years ago
Lots of things at work are sacred, I have to avoid talking about them openly. This makes meetings uncomfortable for me when the very orthodox-privilege leader wants you to open up.<p>Things like Agile for instance can’t be discussed unless you have a near orthodox view.
Tenokealmost 5 years ago
The post points to a true thing, Orthodox Privilege definitely exists and we see examples of it quite often. However, to some extent it exists within bubbles.<p>For example the orthodox position to the <i>statement</i> &#x27;All lives matter&#x27; is &#x27;this is a racist dog whistle&#x27; within one bubble and &#x27;this is an obviously true statement&#x27; within another.
评论 #23845879 未加载
评论 #23845868 未加载
评论 #23846295 未加载
评论 #23846079 未加载
pybalmost 5 years ago
It&#x27;s not the first time that pg alludes to &quot;what you can&#x27;t say&quot;. It would be nice if he could at least outline what it is that he believes he&#x27;s not allowed to say. Otherwise the discussion remains exceedingly abstract. Furthermore, some may assume the worst of whatever he had in mind that &quot;can&#x27;t be said&quot;
评论 #23847702 未加载
评论 #23847926 未加载
评论 #23851474 未加载
评论 #23851400 未加载
评论 #23847673 未加载
carapacealmost 5 years ago
What? Is this a cry for help? Is it ax-grinding? Are there &quot;unorthodox and true&quot; statements that pg would like to make but is afraid of &quot;terrible trouble&quot;? I find the idea of &quot;orthodox privilege&quot; an oxymoron. I don&#x27;t understand what the phrase captures that isn&#x27;t just &quot;privilege&quot;. Maybe the whole essay is just going over my head. Or perhaps I don&#x27;t hear the same &quot;high-pitched noise&quot;?<p>Look, I do something called &quot;Reiki&quot;. For some people it&#x27;s commonplace, for others it&#x27;s crazy-town. I also do something called &quot;computer programming&quot;. For some people it&#x27;s commonplace, for others it&#x27;s crazy-town. (Being a computer nerd used to be cause for abuse and shunning, now we&#x27;re celebrated. So it goes.)<p>My point is, there are lots of ways to rile up the mob and get them to pick up their pitchforks and torches. In some places all you have to do is exist and be black or gay or a woman or white or straight or a man or neither a man nor a woman, or both-at-the-same-time (hermaphrodite), or be both black and white (Trevor Noah&#x27;s autobiography of his childhood in S. Africa, &quot;Born a Crime&quot;, is worth reading, IMO), or be a computer nerd in the locker room at the wrong time, or wear the wrong kind of hat.<p>Mob-ism, with the pitchforks and torches, is a problem (this is hardly news though, eh?)
haunteralmost 5 years ago
That&#x27;s why I really don&#x27;t like the &quot;white privilege&quot;. Poor white people are just as fucked as any other minority in the US yet they&#x27;re being lumped with the rich white people as if they have the same privileges<p>When you&#x27;re poor as fuck and having a shit life and everyone keeps telling you how privileged you are, you stop believing those people and turn to alternative sources for information
评论 #23846375 未加载
评论 #23846899 未加载
评论 #23846423 未加载
评论 #23846279 未加载
评论 #23847469 未加载
评论 #23846500 未加载
评论 #23846333 未加载
评论 #23848334 未加载
评论 #23847713 未加载
评论 #23846493 未加载
评论 #23846645 未加载
评论 #23851038 未加载
评论 #23846247 未加载
评论 #23846444 未加载
dexenalmost 5 years ago
<i>&gt;If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can&#x27;t</i><p>I guess this is an accidentally in-apt example...? It certainly detracts from the essay (<i>mildly</i> and in oh so many words) pushing against accusations of wrongthink - which includes accusations of <i>dogwhistling</i>.
skybrianalmost 5 years ago
I guess a weak form of this fallacy would be &quot;there is nothing true you can&#x27;t say, provided that you are very careful about how you say it.&quot; That is, assuming that the people who get in trouble were speaking too bluntly or imprecisely.
loourralmost 5 years ago
Beating around the bush Paul...
emiliobumacharalmost 5 years ago
Great essay, useful concept I never noticed before. But I cannot agree with the last sentence.<p>&quot;If you believe there&#x27;s nothing true that you can&#x27;t say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.&quot;<p>Even if one is 100% convinced that true statements are 100% safe, there remains the possible beliefs that being wrong is <i>okay</i> to some degree, and that becoming right is a hard process that may involve believing false statements and saying them.
gringoDanalmost 5 years ago
&gt; It&#x27;s safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it&#x27;s currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone. They literally can&#x27;t imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble.<p>It seems to me that this stems from two interrelated issues:<p>1. People defaulting to their tribal position (red&#x2F;blue in the US) without thinking deeply and engaging in rational discussion of issues.<p>2. A lack of empathy.<p>What is &quot;currently acceptable to believe&quot; is determined by your ingroup. And rather than trying to understand why someone in the outgroup would hold a different opinion, the ingroup paints all of them as crazy&#x2F;stupid&#x2F;X-ist. While the red tribe is generally more criticized in this regard, the blue tribe is just as complicit (look at the smug superiority of John Oliver and other political comedians).<p>While this tribal fighting occurs, power is consolidated. The people with keen insights (that may be construed as controversial) will make them privately, rather than take on public risk. In the words of Jessica Livingston, &quot;I don&#x27;t have time to fight with people who are trying to misunderstand me.&quot; [1]<p>I hope that there is a solution to this problem, so that the internet can reach its potential to democratize access to information and data, rather than becoming a mechanism to virtue signal acceptable tribal beliefs.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundersatwork.posthaven.com&#x2F;the-sound-of-silence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundersatwork.posthaven.com&#x2F;the-sound-of-silence</a>
评论 #23846257 未加载
greenie_beansalmost 5 years ago
he&#x27;s smart and i always like reading his insight but his writing is so cryptic and always dances around his point without fully committing to it
评论 #23845977 未加载
评论 #23846478 未加载
bhntr3almost 5 years ago
Orthodox privilege probably exists but, at least in the US, we also see a lot of people who fetishize independent-mindedness to a degree that&#x27;s irrational as well.<p>I have advocated before for epistemic learned helplessness (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceforsustainability.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Epistemic_Learned_Helplessness" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceforsustainability.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Epistemic_Learned_...</a>).<p>&gt; thinking for ourselves is over-rated in most cases. In most cases, for most of us, good science and pseudoscience, good history and pseudohistory are going to be equally convincing. Bayesian logic suggests that sticking with mainstream experts and consensus thinking is a safer bet than rolling the dice on the Galileo Gambit.<p>So PG seems to be arguing that orthodox privilege is bad and independent-mindedness is important while Scott Alexander seems to be arguing that conventional mindedness should be the default. They&#x27;re both very convincing essayists. Who is saying something true that can&#x27;t be said and who is saying something popular but false?
chrisallickalmost 5 years ago
The concept is not overused. Privilege, and the abuse of it, is _that_ pervasive.
评论 #23846523 未加载
smitty1ealmost 5 years ago
&gt; The spectral signature of orthodox privilege is &quot;Why don&#x27;t you just say it?&quot; If you think there&#x27;s something true that people can&#x27;t say, why don&#x27;t you be brave, and own it? The more extreme will even accuse you of specific heresies they imagine you must have in mind, though if there&#x27;s more than one heresy current in your time, these accusations will tend to be nondeterministic: you must either be an xist or a yist.<p>That&#x27;s not &quot;orthodox privilege&quot;. That&#x27;s fear.<p>&gt; How do you respond to orthodox privilege?<p>Wait for the storm of folly to blow over. The nihilistic idiocies that I cannot name shall have destroyed themselves in their madness before much longer, like the French Revolution before them.<p>&gt; If you believe there&#x27;s nothing true that you can&#x27;t say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.<p>The best generals are quite choosy where&#x2F;when they engage. But stand by for the silent majority to weigh in some months hence.
josephhurtadoalmost 5 years ago
Good argument, but the naming is wrong.<p>It is NOT orthodox privilege, but the complete opposite we are dealing with today.<p>Let&#x27;s remind ourselves what orthodox means: &quot;Following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.&quot;<p>Well nowadays the non-traditional views are trending, and shutting down the traditional views. So the &quot;orthodox privilege&quot; actually belongs to the NON-ORTHODOX folks who like to push their opinions to everyone else, and have the backing of major media, and academia behind them.<p>That is the reason why freedom of speech is dying in society today, and is being replaced with conformance, and silence. This is dangerous, and bad for democracy. Democracies require an open, respectful sharing of people&#x27;s views. When those views are persecuted, the people are cancelled, the companies are boycotted, we have a problem. That problem is UN-ORTHODOX PRIVILEGE.
luckylionalmost 5 years ago
I believe that there&#x27;s one big flaw in this essay, and it&#x27;s these two sentences: <i>But they can&#x27;t overcome orthodox privilege just by learning more. They&#x27;d have to become more independent-minded.</i><p>I don&#x27;t necessarily disagree, but from reading a few comments here, I believe that they are counter-productive in so far that nobody likes to think of themselves as somebody who isn&#x27;t independent-minded.<p>When somebody now reads about something they haven&#x27;t experienced (having opinions they know they can&#x27;t share without undue pushback) and then goes on to read that this is because they&#x27;re not &quot;independent-minded&quot;, it&#x27;ll automatically trigger their ego-defenses, making it hard for them to even accept that the author isn&#x27;t just arguing in bad faith because their horrific beliefs are rejected, and at the same time makes them double down in the belief that there is no such thing as an Orthodox Privilege.
asdfasgasdgasdgalmost 5 years ago
Not my favorite essay ever. Most unorthodox beliefs aren&#x27;t on the list of things you &quot;can&#x27;t say.&quot; A small subset of unorthodox statements might make you the subject of anger from various groups. The essay seems to suggest that anyone who doesn&#x27;t have a problem with this is ignorant of &quot;orthodox privilege.&quot; IMO, that&#x27;s uncharitable. I think most people understand that it&#x27;s easier to have orthodox beliefs. The folks who have no problem with cancel culture view the things being cancelled as a bigger problem than the challenge of having heterodox beliefs.<p>I&#x27;ll also just note that the vast majority of heterodox beliefs and statements are not on the list of things you &quot;can&#x27;t say.&quot; A small subset of them, especially relating to race and gender, are risky. Maybe there&#x27;s a good reason for that?
评论 #23846679 未加载
KboPAacDA3almost 5 years ago
Related: Overton window - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window</a><p>&quot;The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time.&quot;
评论 #23846596 未加载
raldialmost 5 years ago
There are true statements that are rightly unacceptable because placed in certain rhetorical contexts, there&#x27;s an implied argument that they&#x27;re making which has been rejected by society.<p>For example, JK Rowling&#x27;s statement that &quot;there used to be a word for people who menstruate&quot; was essentially true (menopause aside), but had a hefty implied message about the legitimacy of transgender women, one which is rightly considered offensive to most of modern society.<p>Edit: Since people are nitpicking, here&#x27;s an even starker example: Can you imagine contexts where it would be rightly offensive for an African-American to be told the true statement &quot;My ancestors used to enslave people like you&quot;?
评论 #23846236 未加载
评论 #23846482 未加载
评论 #23846182 未加载
评论 #23846470 未加载
评论 #23846241 未加载
评论 #23846098 未加载
评论 #23846285 未加载
评论 #23846165 未加载
评论 #23847244 未加载
评论 #23846234 未加载
评论 #23846222 未加载
082349872349872almost 5 years ago
For an example of a US southerner speaking from orthodox privilege in 1860: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23739361" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23739361</a><p>For an example of a Nazi speaking from orthodox privilege in 1943: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;research.calvin.edu&#x2F;german-propaganda-archive&#x2F;goeb36.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;research.calvin.edu&#x2F;german-propaganda-archive&#x2F;goeb36...</a><p>&quot;The West is in danger. It makes no difference whether or not their governments and intellectuals realize it or not. ... We also know our historic responsibility. Two thousand years of Western civilization are in danger. One cannot overestimate the danger. ... The only choice now is between living under Axis protection or in a Bolshevist Europe.&quot;<p>For an example of Athenians speaking from the Most Orthodox Of All Privileges in 431 BC: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mtholyoke.edu&#x2F;acad&#x2F;intrel&#x2F;melian.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mtholyoke.edu&#x2F;acad&#x2F;intrel&#x2F;melian.htm</a><p>&quot;right ... is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.&quot;
grugagagalmost 5 years ago
To keep my sanity I tuned out of this conversation. I get easily confused by diverging opinions and I came to become afraid to say anything at all publicly because someone may feel hurt. I don&#x27;t want to cause that to anyone but I get a general sense of going crazy when I think of what to say: huge cognitive dissonance. And that is not because I have some views that are not in sync with other peoples views, their views are simply confusing to follow.<p>Wake me up when this is over. I will do a last effort when things stabilize so I get on the same page with everyone or basically the general consensus.
temacalmost 5 years ago
I&#x27;m wary of social hypotheses that place an irrefutable &#x2F; indefensible burden on &quot;me&quot; (well, actually, on anybody), especially if the only reason is by association because of correlations with arbitrary traits.<p>I can very well admit that some cultures (in a very broad sense of the term) have agressive characteristics perceived by people used to others and, to the extend the advantages are greater than potential drawbacks (which are often not even present or can be short term, granted), try to be careful about that in hopefully a benevolent way. Also, people classified as privileged might also perceive tons of things as aggressive against them, and mere injunctions to stop or act as if not in all regard, are not productive -- it does not really matter who is &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;right&quot; if an action is de-facto antagonizing and polarizing over and over (well, from an individual ethic pov it <i>does</i> matter very much, but from an outcome that&#x27;s debatable...), unless you are ready to escalate, and that seems a terrible idea.<p>So I don&#x27;t believe people with characteristic X or Y shall be approached all the time as if they are a mean representative of their &quot;group&quot; and shall as a result apply a parody of Bayesianism blind to all other traits, and blind to individual variance, and blind to the knowledge of themselves.<p>I don&#x27;t see why, from time to time, there would not be people who are &quot;true&quot; about things they won&#x27;t even say, but that does not seem a very powerful thing to act upon. I just don&#x27;t know what to do with that, and especially I&#x27;m not sure I understand where to go from that to the conclusion.<p>Some intelligent people think X and other intelligent people not X?<p>Yes, that happens. Very often. Extremely often.<p>But is there even an absolute truth when &quot;cancel culture&quot; is concerned, and what even is the precise definition? The wording is typically used to talk about things believed excessive. For example it&#x27;s one thing being associated with Epstein and people not wanting to work with you anymore; it&#x27;s another thing to be fired because you told a silly joke to a friend during a conference, and a third party ears it.<p>Absolute truth in social subjects is rarely to be seen, especially when we talk about blurry concepts.<p>(edit: typos)
francoispalmost 5 years ago
kudos to Paul for this one. Writing about a very very charged and divisive social phenomenon and putting out a meta-conception that casts a better light in a very adroit, objective angle. True free thinker stuff. This is prolly how enlightened individuals had to softly tread their way also in other times, although one on one and small groups allows more forgiveness and time to practice wording your conception than big bad internet.
nayukialmost 5 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window</a>
neilkalmost 5 years ago
pg has (for a long time) asserted that he has opinions that would get him pilloried in the public square. He&#x27;s advocated that one shouldn&#x27;t share those opinions. And he&#x27;s continued to frequently allude to their existence.<p>Having already dismissed the common people&#x27;s ability to process unorthodox beliefs, he then goes on to complain that people shouldn&#x27;t speculate or make assumptions about those beliefs that he keeps alluding to?<p>He further asserts that people who advocate open discussion must be dullards, whose minds are only filled with the opinions of others?<p>I don&#x27;t agree. What should a rational, Bayesian person conclude about someone who keeps alluding to beliefs they can&#x27;t say? What&#x27;s the most frequent such belief?<p><pre><code> Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones </code></pre> -- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ndrew_lawrence&#x2F;status&#x2F;1050391663552671744" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ndrew_lawrence&#x2F;status&#x2F;105039166355267174...</a><p>Caveats: I&#x27;m not saying that pg holds any particular views, racist or otherwise. I don&#x27;t know what it&#x27;s like to be someone in his position. I expect there are a lot of people who are eager to take his statements out of context and that can be wearying. And although the above tweet is a pithy illustration, I don&#x27;t think pg qualifies as a conservative either.<p>But I&#x27;m pretty sure that pg is not hiding a belief like &quot;Amazon should be broken up&quot;, or &quot;recycling is mostly a sham&quot; or &quot;actually nuclear power is green&quot; or even &quot;I oppose reparations for slavery&quot;. The beliefs at issue these days on social media tend to be about _personhood_ - acceptance of trans people, the acceptance of certain identities as oppressed, and so on. Someone popping up in the discussion and saying that he holds beliefs he can&#x27;t say - well, what am I supposed to think?<p>And if I was being generous and assuming they were constructive views that were inexpressible right now, what am I supposed to do? What action does pg want us to take to fix that? I don&#x27;t even know what direction pg wants the discussion to go in.
评论 #23849952 未加载
chrischattinalmost 5 years ago
Excellent essay. I think the qualifier for an unorthodox view&#x2F;idea&#x2F;opinion is that it’s a little bit scary to say in public.<p>Something like... I think the coronavirus reaction is way overblown. It’s not nearly as dangerous as the media would lead you to believe, and wearing masks is basically ineffective and is just a thing to make people feel like they’re doing something.<p>;)
intopiecesalmost 5 years ago
This article seems to praise people for not being &quot;conventional minded,&quot; as if being unorthodox in itself is something to be cherished and rewarded. That is too low of a bar to clear. There are lots of opinions and viewpoints that are unorthodox for good reason -- because they are just bad ideas, or are factually untrue no matter how many times you argue it. It&#x27;s as if PG is saying to us &quot;Think Different,&quot; and just stopping there. What he should be saying is &quot;Think Different, but be prepared to prove it,&quot; as well as &quot;Be a little tolerant of people who are doing their best to prove it.&quot;<p>The problem is that, unless you&#x27;re speaking to someone with whom you have a great deal of trust, that second part -- the earnestness of their unorthodoxy -- is difficult to prove.
评论 #23846097 未加载
评论 #23846338 未加载
评论 #23846168 未加载
xtatalmost 5 years ago
The irony here is that PG loves the valley and one of my biggest frustrations with the valley is how cargo culty everything is - how hard you have to fight to do anything different from the SV way.<p>(Edit: I should add that I also enthusiastically agree with what he&#x27;s saying here.)
platzalmost 5 years ago
&gt; If you believe there&#x27;s nothing true that you can&#x27;t say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.<p>I&#x27;m having a hard time parsing the logic in this sentance. Is there something like affirming the consequent going on here?
newacct583almost 5 years ago
I was about to post a rant about bothsidesism here, bemoaning the fact that pg is talking about a problem without example, as if it&#x27;s something that &quot;everyone&quot; does in various contexts.<p>Then I caught the reference in the second to last paragraph. Clever.
voidhorsealmost 5 years ago
Essays like this are always enticing to people who consider themselves “reasonable”, “logical”, or “intellectual” because they seem to defend the virtues of reason on the surface—flout convention—ally yourself with reason, science!<p>Then you start to realize that while the slef-aggrandizing, implicit, unstated analogy is to someone like Galileo—the mytho-legendary figure of “unconventional wisdom”—the sage that rose us out of the muck—the <i>actual</i> analogy falls apart very quickly because the stances being defended, generally when people rage against “cancel culture” are <i>not</i> progressive, scientifically backed, or methodologically carefully won informed positions, but rather regressive values, such as arguments for the subordination or mistreatment of certain classes of people, the objectification of people, etc.<p>Galileo was a progressive flouting conventional regression—<i>most</i> (not all) whiners about cancel culture are regressive flouting conventional progression.<p>If you think about the broader context in which this article was written you really have to wonder what the so-called “unconventional views” being defended are. As many views that are positive, progressive, evidence based, and generally in service of a more equitable world are in this period finally reaching the status of being “orthodoxy”.<p>pg seems to want to ascribe some inherent moral value in being heterodox without actually questioning the contents of that heterodoxy—which is really foolish. It’s a view that abuses history by viewing it in the abstract in order to, at worst, build up extremely flimsy defenses of bad behavior, and at best, state nothing more than the extremely obvious “some people in history were right when the majority of people were wrong”<p>I also think right and wrong are the completely incorrect categories to use in this context—going back to Galileo—it makes sense to say he was “right” in matters of science while the church was “wrong” because science is rigidly defined, verifiable, etc.—politics and moral questions are not rigidly defined and there is no completely agreed upon system for working out binary categories of “right” and “wrong” when it comes to political and ethical matters—people subscribe to tons of different moral systems many of which yield incompatible views over the same issue—pg seems to assume everyone operates using the same moral&#x2F;political calculus—it would be different if we were discussing matters of science but its very clear that the intended topic zone here is political—pg just never states these things explicitly since being concrete about it would demolish his position and reveal how ridiculous it is.
评论 #23850935 未加载
Lironalmost 5 years ago
‪I’m seeing more complaints about the abstract concept of “things you can’t say” than actual object-level things-you-can’t-say said anonymously.‬<p>‪How come, if the internet makes anonymous publishing so easy and safe?‬
myth_busteralmost 5 years ago
AKA, nothing to hide argument.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nothing_to_hide_argument" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nothing_to_hide_argument</a>
apexalphaalmost 5 years ago
&gt;The spectral signature of orthodox privilege is &quot;Why don&#x27;t you just say it?&quot; If you think there&#x27;s something true that people can&#x27;t say, why don&#x27;t you be brave, and own it? The more extreme will even accuse you of specific heresies they imagine you must have in mind, though if there&#x27;s more than one heresy current in your time, these accusations will tend to be nondeterministic: you must either be an xist or a yist.<p>Well. This kind of hit a snare with me... I&#x27;m the kind of person that would say this to people. I&#x27;m not entirely sure what to think of it as a whole, the letter. I might have to read it again later.
评论 #23846383 未加载
d_burfootalmost 5 years ago
One important thing that the essay doesn&#x27;t mention is that our current orthodoxy isn&#x27;t democratic. The orthodoxy is dictated by newspapers and universities, with some help from Hollywood and tech companies. None of those institutions are remotely democratic (if they were, they wouldn&#x27;t be so strongly aligned with the left). Perhaps we need to establish some limitations on what people are allowed to say, but if so, those limits must be decided by formal democratic processes.
jarmitagealmost 5 years ago
For a list of 46 other privileges (some that overlap with this proposal), see this classic article:<p>White privilege and male privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women&#x27;s Studies (1988) by Peggy McIntosh <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.collegeart.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;diversity&#x2F;white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.collegeart.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;diversity&#x2F;white-privilege-and...</a>
评论 #23856598 未加载
raxxorraxalmost 5 years ago
Sneaky use of orthodox. There has always been the problem of finding words so that the targeted group doesn&#x27;t know they are talked about.<p>I don&#x27;t really think the solution of being polite is working for anonymous internet comments for obvious reasons, but for other places it has been the classical solution.
mellosoulsalmost 5 years ago
I don&#x27;t really understand what this concept is adding that ideas like &quot;blinkeredness&quot; don&#x27;t already cover, as orthodox in this case (as has been pointed out by others here) is context-dependent.<p>I&#x27;ve read it a couple of times and am still a bit unsure of what new idea it&#x27;s getting at.
1xdeveloperalmost 5 years ago
I would love to know Paul&#x27;s definition of a &quot;true thing&quot;.
hashkbalmost 5 years ago
Does pg reach many people who don&#x27;t want his money or favor?
mlang23almost 5 years ago
Using &quot;blind&quot; as a negative figure of speech is about as intelligent and empathic as is using &quot;crippled&quot;. Talk about priviledged people that can not see the POV of outsiders.<p>-- a blind admin&#x2F;coder
Fiveplusalmost 5 years ago
minor follow-up: How do you distinguish an orthodox privileged person from the herd (besides them telling you to speak your mind)?
评论 #23845892 未加载
honkycatalmost 5 years ago
What a bad take. I would expect Paul Graham to be more educated on a topic before he says something so tired and uninsightful.<p>It comes from BOTH SIDES. The right wing also cancels people with social media. A few well-placed articles by right-wing publications and their targets will have a months long harassment campaign of people trying to break into their social media and bank accounts, constant death threats and hate messages and photographs of their house, insults, harassment at their place of work. Convenient that always gets left out of the &quot;cancel culture&quot; discussions.<p>We need to stop acting like conservatives have no power in this country. They do, they literally run the country and arguments like this are just people getting in additional body-blows against liberal opponents. You want to see what &quot;performatice victimhood&quot; looks like, look at the extremely rich Paul Graham whining that people get mad at him when he says things we don&#x27;t like. We do not like the way we are treated, and we are going to continue to speak out. If that gets you fired: GOOD.<p>I understand it is frustrating, and I have said before: I don&#x27;t like the cry bullies and woke-scolds on the internet. I do not think they actually care about the cultural movement, and I think they should go outside and get a life. But I honestly believe the progress we have made in the cultural consciousness for gay, trans, and people of color has been phenomenal, and it arises from the new &quot;woke culture.&quot;<p>I think the cry-bullying and woke-scolding days are numbered, they are starting to eat their own and even allies are getting sick of it.
knownalmost 5 years ago
Always post your opinions anonymously on Internet. Nobody wants you to succeed.
__alexsalmost 5 years ago
Great piece. I frequently find myself withholding opinions about inequality because they&#x27;d get me in trouble. The orthodoxy really has the debate on lock down, glad the Trump situation has really got the debate moving again though.
dilandaualmost 5 years ago
Twitter is perfectly designed for coordinating attacks on individuals. The problem is that so many organizations tend to yield to the slightest hint of twitter outrage, which reinforces these kinds of cancellations.
peisistratosalmost 5 years ago
The a priori to all of this current hubbub is a large number of people who are not of an upper class or upper middle class white American background, who are not even heard at all.<p>One example would be Tulsi Gabbard. We do not hear what she says. We hear from a New York Times columnist who went to exclusive prep schools and then to an Ivy League college (where she tried to &quot;cancel&quot; Arab professors by testifying against them that they were antisemitic) before landing her plum role, that Gabbard is an &quot;Assad toadie&quot;. After years of throwing mud from her aerie, she herself finally feels some criticism come in, and quits her job in a huff, with ramblings about the end of freedom.<p>Hillary Clinton not so indirectly implied Gabbard was some sort of stalking horse of Putin&#x27;s as well. Saturday Night Live joins in. This is all not considering canceling though. It&#x27;s not, in a sense, the notion that the US should not have military bases all over the world was never out there on the corporate controlled media channels . There&#x27;s nothing to cancel - that show was never allowed on to start with.<p>Pushback against this mudslinging is considered canceling though. This is the threat to freedom we hear Sturm and Drang about.<p>The channels of media out there all blast forth establishment views, benefiting a minority of privileged people. They are born upper and upper middle class, white, and are American if not by birth then by coming to the US. Other voices are excluded. All that is left and that can finally be faintly heard is some criticism of these establishment narratives. That this pushback is causing demonstrations around the country and criticism of the establishment narrative is very distressing for these people.<p>(A tangential example - in the days after 9&#x2F;11, the New York Times published excerpts of an Osama bin Laden statement. As the whole world seemed to be pivoting on this dialectic, I tried to find the full statement somewhere. I was unable to. I could not even find it on the net. Perhaps it has surfaced in the past 20 years. It reminds me of the old Irish republican cartoon of an Irishman with a British gag over his mouth representing BBC voice bans etc. When the gag is removed a dove of peace comes out. NATO bombing Serbian press is not considered censorship. Satellite installers jailed for installing al-Manar is not censorship. Privileged people who tried to cancel Arab professors getting criticism is considered censorship.)<p>In the current dialectic, we have to-the-manor born, white, more or less American establishment types suddenly having to contend with voices who are not necessarily white or American, who went to public schools and grew up middle class or working class or poor, who are finally having their voices heard and who are challenging the establishment hegemony. I know which side I am on.
staycoolboyalmost 5 years ago
The last paragraph is nefarious:<p>&quot;Once you realize that orthodox privilege exists, a lot of other things become clearer. For example, how can it be that a large number of reasonable, intelligent people worry about something they call &quot;cancel culture,&quot; while other reasonable, intelligent people deny that it&#x27;s a problem? Once you understand the concept of orthodox privilege, it&#x27;s easy to see the source of this disagreement. If you believe there&#x27;s nothing true that you can&#x27;t say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.&quot;<p>Wow, talk about a word-salad to defend privelege.<p>Who would suspect more wisdom on privilege from proud sexist Paul Graham.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;paul-graham-revives-sexism-tech-talk&#x2F;356541&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;paul-...</a><p>He&#x27;s STILL complaining about &quot;things you can&#x27;t say&quot; in this article:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html</a><p>And completely missing the boat on &quot;right to free speech&quot; != &quot;right to no consequences&quot;.<p>He&#x27;s learned nothing. Not a self-reflective bone in this man&#x27;s body.
评论 #23849602 未加载
评论 #23850190 未加载
评论 #23850008 未加载
评论 #23849246 未加载
评论 #23850149 未加载
评论 #23849304 未加载
评论 #23849706 未加载
评论 #23849458 未加载
leafboialmost 5 years ago
I was actually warned by the HN administrator for saying something &quot;True&quot; and slightly negative about a race&#x2F;culture. I threw a bit of &quot;privilege&quot; around because that race was basically my race. Perhaps it was also an example of &quot;orthodox privilege.&quot;<p>I&#x27;m Chinese, the topic was about educational fraud in China and I made a negative comment associating corruption and Chinese culture in general:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23781696" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23781696</a><p>I felt the reaction by dang was out of hand and overblown especially given the fact that he likely has no actual first hand knowledge about the topic. It&#x27;s also a reaction that I feel is unique to the culture in the United States. Definitely, there are racial issues in the United States with issues like Floyd, but I&#x27;m not commenting about that issue, I&#x27;m talking about freedom of speech and when it&#x27;s appropriate to say things that are the result of &quot;orthodox privilege.&quot;<p>The united states is one of the least racist countries in the world. This is a very commendable trait that every citizen should be proud of but every citizen should also be aware that in being the least racist country in the world, the United States, as a result, also has one of the most irrational opinions on race and equality.<p>A black person is generally bigger, taller and stronger than an asian person. Black people are so much further to the right with the bell curve on these traits that the olympic gold medals in strength based sports are typically taken by people of African descent while even rich countries like China with targeted programs to win gold medals rarely bring home gold for strength based sports. These are just biological generalities that are true and that are accepted that not all people&#x2F;races are equal from a physical standpoint.<p>However if I say an one race generally has higher biological IQ then another race... I crossed a line. What black magic allows people to be biologically different physically but doesn&#x27;t allow them to be biologically different behaviorally or mentally?<p>Sure, maybe none of the IQ differences are real and there might be research somewhere that normalizes racial IQ scores when you account for things like socioeconomic background... However, the backlash for even bringing up a topic on biological and racial IQ is outright vicious and as I said before: unique to the United States in terms of the level of intensity.<p>There&#x27;s definitely government oppression in China in terms of what you can and cannot talk about, but there&#x27;s none of this irrational touchy touchy equality stuff you get in the United States. Speech in the united states is regulated by culture and society rather than centrally like in China.. It Changes the overall nature of what is censored and what you can and cannot talk about...<p>For example if you&#x27;re born with a big nose in China, that basically becomes your nickname in China. I literally have a friend with a big nose and everyone just calls him &quot;Big Nose.&quot; I also have a friend in China who&#x27;s fat and his Chinese nickname is Fatass. People just call him &quot;Fatass&quot; by name and it&#x27;s considered slightly derogatory, inline with &quot;Big Nose&quot; but otherwise not a big deal because it&#x27;s also the physical reality. This is in stark contrast to the states where there&#x27;s a whole Body positivity movement is trying to change reality as we know it.<p>I&#x27;m not going to comment on whether being obese is healthy or not, it could or it could not be... but I will say that the Body positivity movement exists not because of there&#x27;s scientific proof that being obese can be healthy... it exists because people are so scared of being insensitive and having their precious feelings hurt that they want to rewrite reality into viewing fat obese people as culturally normal. Again this phenomenon is uniquely prevalent in the United States and not only unique to race and weight. Another example of this occurs in gender pronouns but let&#x27;s not get into that, I&#x27;m sure you already get the point.<p>I have a different conclusion than Paul. I would say that you&#x27;re conventional minded if you&#x27;re afraid to talk about or think about very real yet hard to stomach taboo topics that are True. Cultural biases caused by guilt from past injustices in the United States has taken hysteria and fear to unreasonable levels. I would tell Paul and anyone in a similar situation to take a good look at themselves. If you can&#x27;t comfortably have a scientific conversation about biological IQ, weight, gender and race without fear of losing your job or offending someone how is that different from the christian religion making you feel uncomfortable talking about evolution and natural selection?<p>The cultural biases and conventional thinking exists in the people who are incapable of talking about truth, not the other way around.
评论 #23858959 未加载
brmalmost 5 years ago
I can&#x27;t think of a TRUE statement that you&#x27;ll be cancelled for. I can think of a lot of opinions presented as truths that will get you cancelled. For my edification, can you all please present some hypothetical examples of current TRUE statements that cannot&#x2F;should not be said?<p>Something like &quot;Fat people are a burden on a healthcare system&quot; is true and won&#x27;t get you cancelled.<p>Something like &quot;Trans people are currently the gender they were born&quot; is a philosophical opinion and might get you cancelled but whether its true or not is a sort of Ship of Theseus problem.<p>Something like &quot;Donald Trump has a low IQ&quot; may impede your work progress but that has its own implications about cancel culture that aren&#x27;t what we&#x27;re talking about.<p>So please for the sake of argument, show me an actual truth that will get you cancelled. Seriously looking for examples...
评论 #23847748 未加载
WhompingWindowsalmost 5 years ago
Do we even have a single American orthodoxy? I think orthodox privilege, like everything now, is politicized and partisan. You&#x27;re either a Democrat or Republican, your whole constellation of viewpoints are very predictable given that one label.<p>On the Far Left, we have cancel culture and accusing others of racism... Those on the Far Left will not be castigated by their own orthodox community, because the far left is collectively agreeing to see racism in more places than it is likely to exist. Those within the moderate left are then punished by not conforming to the extreme orthodoxy for saying not all implicitly racist actions are done by racists.<p>Similarly, those on the right will be castigated by their own orthodox community of religious or gun&#x2F;freedom figures who place devotion to those causes most highly. Any GOP figure is taking a great risk criticizing Trump now, because there is a great amount of orthodoxy behind his policies and the packing the courts with judges...in order to ensure the country is more conservative for longer, at any cost (even Trump).<p>Here on HN, we have our own orthodoxy, too. Those who work with Rust find safe haven for their views, and the downvote brigade on HN will descend if you even mention the word Trump.
评论 #23846040 未加载
评论 #23845885 未加载
评论 #23846916 未加载
mlang23almost 5 years ago
Using &quot;blind&quot; as a negative figure of speech is about as intelligent and empathic as is &quot;crippled&quot;. Talk about priviledge and not being able to see the POV of outsiders.<p>-- a blind admin&#x2F;coder
tomlockwoodalmost 5 years ago
&gt; It doesn&#x27;t seem to conventional-minded people that they&#x27;re conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they&#x27;re right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.<p>Exactly! Like for instance, the vast majority of people, who believe they can objectively identify mindless orthodoxies, while somehow remaining immune to them.
评论 #23847767 未加载