> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here.
Which, looking at the replies, is a mistake, because everyone projects the least charitable interpretation and/or assumes the article is dog-whistling.
The problem is that there are heresies and heresies, and conflating everything together isn't helpful.
To give one extreme of a "heresy": It's reasonable to not want to associate with someone if they're (in your perspective) ideologically reprehensible. In that sense, it was a bit aberrant that in the past most people would look the other way at stuff like racism and antisemitism in academia or the workplace ("none of my business," "not related to their professional skills," etc.)
But when other people think of "heresies" they might be talking about approving of a right-wing policy in a left-wing environment, or (moreso in the past) being labelled "communist," or taking contrary stances on things like wage equality.
So to reiterate my point, the article is flawed and can only lead to noisy nuance-less arguments until it spends more time defining "heresy."
The article isn’t flawed; it perfectly shows PGs evolving right leaning viewpoints. I used to understand where he came from when he originally started to argue about women in tech, but the new things he says, can’t stay with them anymore.
You’re trying to divide two types of heresies because you don’t want to acknowledge the truth, there’s no two types just a sliding scale of offensiveness. You want there to be repercussions for some heresies (overt racism and homophobia?) while others should be let to slide by. But there’s no inherent difference between the two types. PG is smart and acknowledges that, but decides there should be no repercussions as long as you state facts. I and I suppose many on the left would say there should be. As long as it’s not the government that’s doing the banning in public forums people need to shut up about their rights. What’s special about the government? As PGs friend Thiel eloquently put, government is a monopoly on violence, it stands to reason the only entity that shouldn’t have the authority to shut your opinions and voice is the entity with the monopoly on violence.
But I guess once you’ve stayed rich and influential for long enough you’re annoyed at this one remaining domain where you can’t just have everything you wanted yet so you want to change the rules to let you do the same. That’s what people like Thiel and now sadly PG are trying to do. They don’t care about any real issues, they just want to spend time blasting wokeness and actively sabotage all of humanity (in Thiels case) because I don’t know what their endgame is.
> There should be no repercussions as long as you state facts. I and I suppose many on the left would say there should be.
So you're saying that there are factually correct statements that nobody should be able to utter without facing repercussions? Can you offer an example?
Saying things that are "true" isn't a guarantee that you will get the best possible reaction.
There are infinite true statements. We have to carefully pick the most useful and applicable truths to say in any given situation.
That's what wisdom and maturity are. Understanding a situation and choosing a good course of action. Including the truths we choose as the primary descriptors of the situation.
It is the infinite regress of orthodoxy that puts the essay’s rhetoric in jeopardy. I think the essay is internally consistent. American culture has built up an unsolvable Zeno’s paradox that no one seems interested in thinking through because barbarians prefer to live in a state of supernatural ignorance. “All conversation about this topic is flawed, therefore the original idea and the response is unable to influence my priors.”
> Which, looking at the replies, is a mistake, because everyone projects the least charitable interpretation and/or assumes the article is dog-whistling.
I think this is actually the big problem in the debate, not "cancel culture" or "heresies". A lot of people seem gleefully enthusiastic about seeing the worst in other people. This is not isolated to just one ideological side: people on the right engage in it just as much as people on the left.
I've started to seriously dislike "dog-whistling". Often it's "yes, what they're saying is looks fine on the surface, but I know their actual secret motivations!" Yes, things like "14/88" and whatnot really are "dog-whistling" and it's fine to call it out as such, but 9 times out of 10 I see it used today it's weird assertion about someone's motivations. It's essentially a straw-man argument with extra steps (allude to a far more extreme position than what was stated, and then attack that).
Sometimes this goes so far I wonder if I somehow don't understand the English language correctly, or ... something. Many times I see people commit a "heresy" it's something fairly mild – or even completely benign – taken to far more extreme levels than what it seems to mean on the surface.
In this specific article it seems clear to me that Graham isn't defending tosspot Nazis or other overt "x-ists", yet here in the comments we have people who seemingly take this to mean that Graham is defending folks who say that "people with different skin colors are dumber" and similar things. You can read that in his essay, I suppose, but only if you come at it with a certain attitude.
Once you eliminate the "this person is x-ist, let's find arguments to support it"-attitude the whole "heresy" problem goes away, too. I haven't the foggiest how to actually do that though.
...one of the universal tactics of heretic hunters, now as in the past, is to accuse those who disapprove of the way in which they suppress ideas of being heretics themselves.
Remember, these are religious fanatics not scientific objectivists.
If it’s a dog whistle it’s the loudest one I’ve ever heard.
Beginning of the actual framing of the issue:
> There are an ever-increasing number of opinions you can be fired for.
> For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist,"
Is there any genuine confusion what he’s talking about here? How many commonly used words fit the “x-ist” framing?
I mean he’s a white pontificating boomer billionaire active on Twitter worried he’ll eventually say something dumb and get cancelled.
Which, indeed, is a concept that’s having a cultural moment right now. The problem is he’s adding literally nothing to the discussion.
I think most sane people can realize that the fringe “woke” elements of the discourse can veer into ridiculousness. Maybe that matters a lot maybe it matters a little I dunno.
To the extent there’s an actual problem here it’s really focused on those who are potentially at actual risk.
Examples of actual problems that could be created by excessive wokeness include the increasing degree to which HR is able to divide and control the most vulnerable elements of the labor force, or the highly cynical ways in which jargon laden intersectional language is used to obscure a hegemony of corporate and wealthy donor interests over leftist or activist organizations.
Would be interesting if he had opinions on that.
But instead we’re again talking about how the most powerful economic forces in our culture are being trolled on Twitter. That isn’t an actual fucking problem. Like really it isn’t.
PG is clearly a very smart guy. I’ve read his books I want to like him. Sure is a terrible pity he’s not spending his twilight years being introspective about the horrifying legacy of inequality and misery that’s been inflicted on society by the tech sector, where he has an actual ability to have a positive influence.
Which, looking at the replies, is a mistake, because everyone projects the least charitable interpretation and/or assumes the article is dog-whistling.
The problem is that there are heresies and heresies, and conflating everything together isn't helpful.
To give one extreme of a "heresy": It's reasonable to not want to associate with someone if they're (in your perspective) ideologically reprehensible. In that sense, it was a bit aberrant that in the past most people would look the other way at stuff like racism and antisemitism in academia or the workplace ("none of my business," "not related to their professional skills," etc.)
But when other people think of "heresies" they might be talking about approving of a right-wing policy in a left-wing environment, or (moreso in the past) being labelled "communist," or taking contrary stances on things like wage equality.
So to reiterate my point, the article is flawed and can only lead to noisy nuance-less arguments until it spends more time defining "heresy."