back
24 comments
Previously (April 2022, 1382 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977147
“Why? Why has this antiquated-sounding religious concept come back in a secular form? And why now?”

Victims of racism and sexism are tired of living in a world built for someone else.

My heart goes out to Paul Graham the victim who would now face consequences for expressing racist and sexist views! Sure wish we could roll this back to the state of “enlightenment” before this was true.

I don't think enlightenment should be in quotes here. I'm pretty sure this really is the logical conclusion of the ideas in the enlightenment and if we want to move beyond the trouble we have we're going to have to question those.
I was quoting it as it was used in the footnote:

“It's only because they live in a world created by the Enlightenment that kids from the suburbs can play at banning ideas.”

Gee imagine being fired or ostracized for voicing casually x-ist comments even though they were true...

Imagine being fired or ostracized because of your sex/skin/passport though... stop whining, start asking questions. What does the experience of being x feel like at your company? Just ask and listen.

So true. Insane that he sees himself as the victim here.
“Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade”

This is a huge claim that requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, imo. Maybe it’s true for him. Maybe it’s true for his social group, maybe it’s true for his industry, but I expect high quality independent evidence for this claim before I would believe that it has changed significantly in either direction.

This is spot on. More and more people are beginning to understand that we are witnessing is not a political ideology but a religion. As such it will go through a similar cycle like Puritanism, Evangelical Christianity, etc.
Sort of, although presently the motivations of the left stem from efforts to protect vulnerable and traditionally disadvantaged groups of human beings.

Meanwhile the conservative right seems to be going the traditional religion route. Along with a desire to be free to hate disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and anyone arbitrarily deemed different?

This is what it looks like from where I sit, anyhow.

The thing is we know what this looks like from the right. We’ve seen it many times before and we know how to ridicule it in the public square.

The emergence of a non-secular religious order from the left is a relatively new thing in America. Whereas on the ultra right you see hatred for people who look different, on the ultra left you see the same hatred for people who THINK different.

Look at what happens when one of their own happens to disagree with them. They are immediately branded “X-ist” and casted out. An example is lifelong feminists who are being branded TERFs for the sin of questioning what’s happening in womens sports.

I know plenty of Democrats who are not woke. I know plenty of republicans who are not religious zealots. It is important to note the distinction between these groups. PG’s essay is about the emergence of a new such group in the US which is both fascinating and dark.

So now instead of analyzing and understanding the culture war, you're taking a side in it.
I don't know how to get around the fact that it hurts me to see marginalized groups get trodden on and become further outcast by society. Marginalization amplifies the global amount of human pain and suffering, and for what purpose?
You might want to consider the fact that the places where these people are the worst off--where they are most likely to be the victims of not just "marginalization" but outright violent crime--are places in which leftists control the government and have for a long time. This can be seen at the level of countries--would you rather be "marginalized" in the US, or killed or sent to a concentration camp for a lifetime of hard labor in Russia or China?--and at the level of different cities/jurisdictions within a country--the worst cities for minorities in the US in terms of actual objective facts like rates of violent crime are the strongholds of the left: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles.

Why is this? I would say it's because cynical, corrupt politicians on the left are misusing your very human and worthwhile desire to help people who are less fortunate than you, in much the same way that cynical, corrupt politicians on the right are misusing other people's very human and natural desire to not have their lives micromanaged to the nth degree.

This seems like a logical error- the argument blames the government for crime against minorities in progressive regions. There aren't always viable structural solutions to these problems.

Furthermore, it is defeatest and nhilistic to then conclude that we're all just pawns and screwed no matter what.

I do like your analysis on the root causes - protecting people vs. life micromanagement, it succinctly sums up the fundamental difference in ideology.

I think the distinction is a bit more blurry than you're implying here. Political (maybe too limiting) ideology is a linear model fit over the vast complexity of life that provides a framework for its adherents to make simple choices in the face of complex problems.

Traditionally conceived "spiritual" religions seem very similar to me.

> But if they answer no, it's easy to show that they're mistaken, and that in practice such labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity.

That seems like a potentially hazardous undertaking.

Paul has said a lot of smart things, but this essay is hard to read.

Paul seems to be complaining here that since becoming relevant/influential he's no longer "allowed" to have "x-ist" beliefs.

I mean, yeah... This is how the world works?

When your job is digging holes alone in a field (or the office/academic equivalent), you can vomit whatever insane nonsense you want without consequence, because it doesn't affect anyone or anything. You don't matter.

When your position gives you implicit or explicit power over a group of employees, founders, culture, etc; and that group either includes X's or people who care about X's, being "x-ist" has a material and unfair impact on those people. Asserting unrepentantly an "x-ist" opinion makes you _bad at that job_, and in fine capitalist tradition a better individual is found to replace you.

Also I flat-out don't buy his assertion that it's impossible to be forgiven. Louis C.K. just won a Grammy, Chappelle just signed four more comedy specials for Netflix, who are these people forever out in the cold for speaking hard truths?

Every time this comes up I wonder what these forbidden opinions he has which he dares not utter are.

Indeed. Once you have a megaphone in your hand new etiquette applies.
Agreed. I’ve enjoyed a lot of his writing but this one is pretty embarrassing.
Your viewpoint concerns me greatly. I am absolutely stunned that the HN community can support this surface-level analysis.

What if a person finds themself in a position that gives them "implicit or explicit" power over a group of people (employees, students, whatever) and they use this position to utter "x-ist" beliefs that challenge the dogma of the day (which x-ism/x-phobia is a part of)? What if the very act of them speaking out perforates the layer of authoritarianism that governs and blinds most people such that they are enlightened as to the new religion that they've inherited whilst asleep?

Would you support them then?

> Asserting unrepentantly an "x-ist" opinion makes you _bad at that job_, and in fine capitalist tradition a better individual is found to replace you.

Such a job entails many facets - being poor at one doesn't necessarily nullify your talents elsewhere (though granted it _could_).

Who defines x-ism/x-phobia?

Nice hypothetical, can you come up with a real example of such a brave and controversial statement? Because I'm not sure this actually exists, most of the tube "x-ism" is also "being an asshole for no reason".
You're also operating with hypotheticals here, except you don't get challenged 'cause you're supporting the average viewpoint which is to by-proxy use the very power of x-isms to reject the main point without engaging in debate, i.e. you can get away at rejecting the article's premise because of potential "x-isms" they're guilty of and because they're x-isms you don't have to debate.

I would direct you to Vaclav Havel's book "Power of the Powerless" - where dictatorship of the ritual is spelled out and how he amazingly identifies the traits of post-totalitarian societies. I believe heresy is one such trait.

I would also add that my main issue is with this flippant attitude towards the greater issue: that heresy is alive and well and trumps everything from science, truth, evidence and context.

Answer me: who defines x-ism/x-phobia? Remember if such a tool (heresy) exists and it is effective then your enemies get to use it too.

I can name all kinds of sexist statements I've heard first-hand in just the past few months (none, I might add, which incurred any consequence). I bet you can too. Sexism, as an example of an "x-ism", is endemic in tech. If you must have an example let's just go with the Damore memo.

You're the one saying that there are some sacred truths which cannot be uttered on pain of ostracism. Citation required, because I can't prove or demonstrate a negative. I would direct you to "Basic Logic", an introductory textbook by Raymond J. McCall.

Excellent.

You can't help wondering if religious impulses are always there, and as "regular" religions die out, a secular one steps right up to take its place.