Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I like Paul and am very sympathetic to this essay. But I want to make some points that may subvert his thesis, in the hope that we can nuance things a bit, hopefully in an interesting way.

1. Some things may be true (or at least potentially true) but not appropriate to point out in a given social situation. Example: "Avi did a good job on this project in part because of his Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, which conferred a genetic intelligence advantage." This could be true, it has some scientific support, but it seems to be not a good idea to say. It would probably still not be a good idea to say even if we definitely knew it to be true. A person who habitually says things like this might reasonably risk reputational and professional consequences.

2. Paul says there are more heresies than in decades past. Is that true, or are they just different?

3. Are there some things that should be heresies, like arguing vigorously for the legalization or destigmatization of adult-child sexual relationships? Don't those things provide some insight into why people might see themselves as legitimate in making X-ism a heresy?

Will add more as I continue reading.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: