A Clarification

http://blog.samaltman.com/a-clarification

by craigkerstiens • 9 years ago

92 167 9 years ago

blog.samaltman.com

jwilk• 9 years ago

Original post on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093

minimaxir• 9 years ago

And the counterargument to the original post on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614

huac• 9 years ago

Again, Sam misses the point - saying today that 'gay people shouldn't have rights' is not the same as saying 'gay people should have rights' 20 years ago (or honestly probably even 5-10 years ago). Arguing to take rights away from people is in no way equivalent to arguing to treat people equally.

Controversy is not a measure of worth or consideration. Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people. But homophobic ideas can and do hurt gay people.

scrollaway• 9 years ago

I do not get the impression, from the previous post nor this one, that Sam is unaware of the distinction between the impact of/consequences of/hurt caused by one controversial stance 50 years ago ("gay people should have rights") and the opposite one today ("gay people shouldn't have rights").

If this distinction is something he understands (which, personally, I believe he does but hey, I could be wrong), could it be that it's not him missing the point?

matchu2• 9 years ago

Sam's argument seems to be that one of our major social problems is that we socially disallow controversial ideas, which makes him feel uncomfortable expressing himself and stifles social progress. Therefore, we should start allowing controversial ideas.

The parent comment asserts that Sam's premise is wrong: ideas aren't being rejected for their controversy, but rather for their harmfulness. Saying that "it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people" (see his previous post) implicitly draws a false equivalence between civil rights advocacy and bigotry as fair-game "controversial" ideas.

interfixus4• 9 years ago

LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people

Opinion. Up for discussion.

charonn06• 9 years ago

What are some counter-arguments to this opinion?

jrs955• 9 years ago

You're missing the point he's trying to make. He obviously understands this. He's just saying that freedom of speech should actually exist. As soon as you start adding subjective exceptions, you've killed it.

darawk4• 9 years ago

No, you are missing the point. The moral history of the world does not terminate in the present. You are basically arguing that the modern consensus is the only acceptable opinion to hold. 50 years ago the modern consensus was that gays should not have rights. The person filling your shoes then would have said "It's unacceptable to discuss giving Gay's rights, we all know it's wrong and abominable, anyone with that opinion should be driven from their post".

whatyoucantsay4• 9 years ago

Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people.

But only people? Not animals? How do you feel about thinking, feeling beings being raised through a life of torture only to be slaughtered so that people can experience some mouth pleasure for a few moments?

How about consideration for people whose ideas don't completely align with yours?

Are you really so certain that the mainstream beliefs are, for the first time in history, unassailable?

Engage the point rather than saying he misses it.

nostrademons• 9 years ago

There's an underlying issue here, which is that people come at these statements with different fundamental ideas of what is true and what are the likely consequences of an action. Few people would actively support denying rights to other people for zero reason. Most of the time, when they believe that rights should be denied, it's because they believe that allowing those rights would trample on the rights of other people in a significant way.

A significant fraction of America believes that allowing gay people to marry means that God will deny them entrance to the kingdom of Heaven when they die. I think this belief isn't just false, it's ridiculous - there is no God, there is no Heaven, and even if there were, He wouldn't be so petty as to deny entrance just because you supported other people having the same rights as you to get married.

But if you take this premise as given, then homophobia and all of the backlash against LGBTQ people makes a lot more sense. Which would you rather have, eternal damnation for your entire society or a few deviants being able to live their lives with each other? And I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist and he doesn't hate gay people - I may think the ideas are ridiculous, but people who hold those ideas think that my heresy is ridiculous (and worse, dangerous - I'm certainly going to bring damnation upon myself, and probably upon those people who tolerate me). I've been told that I'm going to hell by certain more devout relatives, after all.

I think that this is the sense in which Sam thinks we should be tolerant. We need to be open to other conceptions of what is true, not necessarily what is good (and we need to learn to separate the two of them in our minds so that we can entertain different possible ideas of what is true without automatically endorsing or condemning them). Less than a century ago, it was taken as given within the Western world that God exists and the Bible is His literal word. Ideas that have challenged anything in it - like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's more than 6000 years old - have met a violent reaction throughout history. What other ridiculous things do we believe today will be reexamined tomorrow, and how will we ever examine them if we can't countenance the idea that we might be wrong?

SamReidHughes2• 9 years ago

Saying they shouldn't have rights (what rights?) is different from plenty of derogatory things you could say about gays or the gay community, or trans people.

And LGBT "rights" by some people's definitions do negatively hurt straight people. For example, some want to force hospitals to perform operations on people, and others want to make rules about bathroom use on private or public property. The right of gays to engage in sexual activities has greatly increased promiscuous straight people's STD risk.

Your statement is both untrue and it's an idea that hurts straight people. I guess I'm supposed to think you should be ostracized from society for expressing it.

frabbit2• 9 years ago

Wait what? San Francisco has introduced legislation outlawing the discussion of ideas? Or did someone just post something nasty about the author when he posted something they found nasty?

Nothing to see here except someone having the vapors over being told their ideas are shit.

api3• 9 years ago

People keep confusing extreme disapproval of ideas with censorship. If you say "the Holocaust didn't happen!" and people decide that they don't want to be your friend anymore and private organizations like corporations and universities decide to no-platform you, that's not censorship. That's just people exercising their free choice en masse.

There are some ideas that are justifiably extremely unpopular: racism, extreme religious bigotry, advocacy of genocide or apology for such, etc.

frabbit2• 9 years ago

Exactly. But to be clear, I actually am completely against e.g. Hate Speech laws and while I might support students deciding that they do not want a holocaust denier on their campus I am against handing that decision over to the university corporation.

Avshalom11• 9 years ago

according to the original article it wasn't even people telling Sam he's an idiot/asshole. He was just in Beijing being fawned over and thought it would be nice if he was in SF too.

perfmode8• 9 years ago

In my opinion, I think it is important that we maintain a belief that it is possible to distinguish between progressive controversial ideas and regressive ones.

Am I placing too much faith in reason?

An issue I take with Sam's initial argument is that it seemed to imply that it is not possible to tell the progressive and regressive apart.

jrs955• 9 years ago

That's not the point. The point is that freedom of speech should exist absolutely regardless. Weakening freedom of speech to attack regressive ideas still weakens freedom of speech.

charonn06• 9 years ago

Freedom of speech hasn't been weakened, though.

perfmode8• 9 years ago

What is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?

taneq2• 9 years ago

In my opinion, denoting your personal viewpoint as "progressive" (in the sense of 'my politics = progress = good') is egotistical at best and pure hubris at worst. And reading both TFA in question and the post linked from it, and all I got from the author was the sentiment that "hey maybe we shouldn't bring out the torches and pitchforks at the merest suggestion that someone may not always genuflect before the current Doctrine of Rightthink."

perfmode8• 9 years ago

I never said my viewpoints were progressive. I was asking the question: is it possible to, through the application of reason, distinguish between progressive and regressive ideas?

Unless we can reason our way through ideas, what hope is there that we can find our way out of a paper bag?

backpropaganda2• 9 years ago

Yes it's not. People 100 years ago didn't manage to predict the beliefs common today. What makes you think you'd be able to predict common beliefs 100 years from now?

perfmode8• 9 years ago

I didn’t say “common.”

Of what intellectual value is common belief?

It’s more worthwhile to anchor the discussion sub specie aeternitatis.

QAPereo6• 9 years ago

Ah the pain and peril of being too wealthy for someone to take you aside and tell you to just stop digging.

ChuckMcM3• 9 years ago

The parent comment is a good representative of the non-communication sort of dismissive attack which Sam and others are rebelling against.

At a meta level it ignores the question of "Why is Sam pursuing this conversation?" (the stop digging part which refers to the adage, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.") which implies that Sam is in a hole of his own making, in which 'hole' is considered a bad thing.

Coupled with the "too wealthy for someone to take you aside" which implies either that no one would risk offending Sam by disagreeing with him like the parent does, or that those who associate with Sam (and associates were clearly targeted in the various twitter tirades)

Combined, this is exactly the sort of dismissive comment that seeks to shut down conversation rather than encourage it.

Overall I see so little respect, and so much vitriol, that I wonder if maybe people are parodying the exact sort of behavior that Sam is complaining about or if they even recognize their own patterns.

When someone says something that sounds to the listener as wrong or stupid or elitist or any number of negative things, is that the speaker's issue or the listener's issue? And when the listener is dismissive they unilaterally give up their opportunity to understand do they not?

After Charlottesville there were a number of journalists that went out and talked with people in various groups who were espousing racist points of view. What I found interesting was that of all the people they talked with and I got a chance to see or read, only two 'types' seemed to be there, one was a follower type person who was feeling threatened in their own life and had externalized that fear/threat as as anger/hate against an identifiable group. And the other were the leader type people who really didn't seem to be invested on way or the other but they could use that fear to get people to do things that advanced their own agenda of acquiring power.

There was an article on HN recently that humans are wired to think in Us vs Them modalities. No doubt it helped us survive in tribes, but we have to set that aside if we want to address the core of the problem, and sometimes if we even want to know what the problem really is!

It is very enlightening to hear the stories of "former" racists for this reason. Many that I have heard started with someone listening to the rhetoric of an agitator 'leader type' person who would craft a narrative that this future follower's problems were the result of these 'others'. And call upon their membership in the group of 'Us' to help stop the influence of 'Them'.

We see this pattern raging rampant in national discourse and local discourse, whether it is races, political party, political ideology, or wealth disparity. And too often that rhetoric is portrayed as the conversation but it isn't. It is the emotion, it is not the issue.

People who are unable to move ahead in their personal economic growth see people who appear to be effortlessly becoming wealthier and the emotion is to hate those people. The issue is structural barriers that maintain high levels of wealth inequality. People who feel their financial security is under attack by the perception that those who would take it from them would give it to people unwilling to work as hard as they do. People use strong emotions to shut down conversations, sometimes intentionally and some times not, but the outcome is the same. Something along "We don't talk about that because it just gets everyone all upset."

And I think that is exactly what Sam was trying to say, which was "getting everyone all upset" is not a useful reason for not talking about a particular topic. You need to look that emotion as a signal that the topic is important. If you ignore these important topics they fester and they explode. Whether it is in divorce or in elections where the very fabric of the government is challenged to respond. And by talking about the topic, you can search for the issue behind the emotion and address it.

QAPereo6• 9 years ago

If your sensitivity to anonymous criticism is really that severe, I’d suggest building a kind of emotional immune system and just getting on with your life. Certainly that kind of sensitivity to the speech of others shouldn’t inspire you to wade into a cultural crossfire, especially if you’re in such an advantageous position as a Sam Altman.

baxtr• 9 years ago

This time, at least, he lists some specific examples of topics he thinks others don't want discussed. An improvement over the last post

rhapsodic4• 9 years ago

Two questions, for anyone that cares engage in free discussion of ideas:

If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Christians, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it?

If someone were to make a disparaging remark about Muslims, in general, in their workplace, should they be punished or fired for it?

Avshalom11• 9 years ago

Context matters and specifics matter. There aren't a lot of useful conclusions we can come to from willfully abstract discussions of messy realities.

throwaway02552• 9 years ago

I disagree. The only variable he changed between the two options was the religion involved, so we can have that discussion.

Disparaging Christianity would be mostly acceptable and would receive a warning at most. I've personally witnessed this, no problems.

I think disparaging Islam would instantly earn you a reputation that you would never shake during your entire time at the company, you would 100% receive a warning at the very least, and depending on your coworkers, might be outright fired.

If you weren't fired, you'd live the rest of your days at the company as a pariah.

That all seems self-evident to me, and I find that pretty interesting. Why is discussing it off-limits?

cdoxsey• 9 years ago

As a Christian, I would say, in general, no they should not be punished or fired for it. Occasionally people say things I find offensive, but its usually unintentional or, at the least, impersonal. A lot of engineers are very secular and have quite negative views of traditional religion, views they're more than willing to express at the drop of a hat, not realizing that religious folk live and work among them.

If things are said in an aggressive or confrontational and personal way, or, worse, specific actions are taken (being overlooked for a promotion, humiliated by a superior, forced to take part in objectionable behavior, etc), then that crosses the line, and seems much more objectionable, but even then, its not really the content of the speech so much, but the purpose and motivation behind it.

To be honest I would probably not make a complaint, just put up with it, or simply find a new job.

In general, I think we should aim to avoid offending people needlessly, but also to avoid taking offense. I've put my foot in my mouth all too often, so showing others a bit of grace seems appropriate.

guptaneil2• 9 years ago

The short answer to both is yes.

The longer answer is messier and depends on context and various factors, but I understand the point you’re trying to get at so I’ll address that. I’m sure you’ve seen this cartoon before about equality vs fairness: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*8GivwZy2RijgvaGryS...

Answering yes or no to both questions would be equal but not necessarily fair. That’s because as a Christian, you enjoy the benefit of being the majority religion (assuming you’re in the US). You get a break on your holidays, nobody questions your traditions, and nobody really disparages you. As a Muslim, you have to work on your holidays, you have to hide your traditions to fit in with the Christian norms, you deal with strangers assuming you’re a terrorist and getting kicked off airplanes, or having your resume ignored because of your name. These disadvantages compound quickly even if each one individually may not seem like a big deal. So when a coworker disparages you further in the office, it should be dealt with more concretely.

In business terms, it’s similar to why it was ok for Apple to make fun of Microsoft in the early 2000’s but would be frowned upon now. It’s ok to punch upwards but don’t kick down.

rhapsodic4• 9 years ago

That’s because as a Christian, you enjoy the benefit of being the majority religion (assuming you’re in the US). You get a break on your holidays, nobody questions your traditions, and nobody really disparages you.

If that's your perception, you can't possibly have spent any significant time in the USA in the past 30 years. For at least that amount of time, Christians, and Christianity in general, have been openly mocked, disparaged and insulted in popular culture, university classrooms, in casual conversation, and all over the internet. (I'm OK with that, FTR.) For as long as I've been old enough to pay attention, it has essentially been open season on Christians in the US. Among the left-wing, educated class, there is virtually no social penalty for insulting Christians or their beliefs. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It’s ok to punch upwards but don’t kick down.

That's just an arbitrary rule, made up by you. I suspect it's because you want to maintain the status quo I described above, while keeping any public criticism of Muslims a very risky endeavor.

Grue3• 9 years ago

No, to both. Religion is a choice (in free countries, at least) and does not require special protection. It's no different than saying disparaging remarks about Republicans or Democrats.

sctb2• 9 years ago

Would you mind not posting blatantly off-topic religious flamebait?

Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rhapsodic4• 9 years ago

Sorry, this was not intended as religious flamebait. It was to illustrate a point that is, I believe, quite pertinant to the issue sama is discussing. And I think it's worth noting that the discussion it engendered was completely civil by all participants, which is what I was hoping for, rather than getting flamed.

But I'll defer to your judgement, and not respond again on this thread.

twobyfour4• 9 years ago

Still disagree vehemently. One "brilliant jerk" who isn't shy about saying that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "Jews kill and eat babies" or "all muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't allow them in the country" in an environment that is tolerant to his views can make an environment hostile for 50 non-jerks whom you'll never have a chance to discover are brilliant.

If you try to tell me I have an obligation for the sake of "progress" to tolerate people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about, I will laugh in your face and ask you (politely, the first time) to get out of my place of work.

dwaltrip5• 9 years ago

You chose easy examples. What about the harder ones?

fao_7• 9 years ago

You obviously have some in mind, how about suggesting them?

whatshisface2• 9 years ago

Who decides what voices should be silent?

fao_7• 9 years ago

Voices that call for repression of rights for certain parties should be silenced.

Gay people are a subset of people who have been harassed because of something that a) they cannot control, b) harms nobody (As long as it is between two consenting adults, but that's the same for heterosexual relations).

Fascists are a subset of people who have been harassed because a) they call for non-whites to be exterminated, b) previous fascist movements have put into practice that goal.

The difference is: If I speak about death to gay people, historically this has led to gay people dying -- even if a gay person sat still, they would be attacked. If I speak about death to fascists, historically this has led to fascists dying -- but only after they have mobilized to take power andor spread their beliefs.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which voices should be silent. That is, if one values equality among fellow humans, and keeps a gentle eye on history.

dwaltrip5• 9 years ago

The whole discussion is bogged down because no one knows exactly what everyone else means by "voices being silenced". It seems incredibly unproductive to discuss in this vague, confusing manner.

maxerickson• 9 years ago

"Social networks", which I've quoted because I don't mean the modern sort.

Normal humans will, in fact, stop associating with unpleasant people just as a matter of course.

abnry5• 9 years ago

Advocacy =/= Violence. This is one of the worst ideas of our century, that the words themselves cause injury akin to bodily harm.

There should be a power struggle at the implementation level of ideas. This is where violence may or may not actually occur. But the advocacy level is below that. Certain ideas may make you uncomfortable, you may fear they will be implemented, but they are still only words.

The point of the article still stands: If you rigidly restrict what is okay and what is not okay to say, you risk actually valid countercultural views ever making it to the implementation level.

TillE• 9 years ago

Advocating genocide is violence, I think most people would agree. Talking about "ideas" is so abstract and antiseptic; clearly there are things beyond the pale.

twobyfour4• 9 years ago

Advocacy is not violence, but advocacy of violence is close enough.

There is a distinction to be made between advocacy in general and advocacy of harm (such as deportation or the denial of civil or human rights and of course including violence) or the spreading of slander/libel (e.g. [1]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of...

dsacco8• 9 years ago

So you established a “Socratic baseline”, so to speak. You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity.

Now can you tell me what amount of difference in views you are willing to tolerate for the sake of working with someone brilliant and productive? If you eat meat and one of the most accomplished physicists in the world is militantly opposed to eating meat, would you work with them? What if they refuse to eat lunch with you if you eat meat? What if their views on abortion are diametrically opposed to yours, and they actively vote against your ideals? What if they believe all human beings with mental defects should be aborted in the womb?

In other words, I want you to haggle with your position a bit so I can understand how you react in the more real world scenario, in which an otherwise useful individual’s views are very different, but not cartoonishly different from your own.

charonn06• 9 years ago

You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity.

What they actually said was "people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about"

Avshalom11• 9 years ago

Are you so incapable of taking an individual situation on it's merits that you can't even handle to possibility that others might not have set in stone rules or mathematically model-able behaviors?

Yes situational ethics is messy, no they are not invalid because they are messy.

alexryan• 9 years ago

We are survival machines for genes who evolved brains in order to predict which moves will improve the probability of the survival of our genes. The survival machines who evolve the better predictive models fastest are the ones who win. The best way that I know how to evolve my predictive model quickly is to argue with those who hold views that are different than my own. In the majority of these cases, both parties benefit by improving their predictive models. I’m not sure why, but hacker news seems to filter out a lot of unpopular opinions. This slows the rate by which we evolve our predictive models. This slows the rate of innovation. IMHO this leaves us all poorer both individually and collectively.

viewtransform• 9 years ago

Humans progress involves consigning some models to the trashcan of history.

neom2• 9 years ago

I get confused reading this because I keep finding it difficult to reconcile the reasoning and logic between attitude, demeanor, and intellect.

taneq2• 9 years ago

What? The entire article is couched in terms of "people saying controversial things."

I'm a straight white man so I have no clue really

OK, stop and have a think about what you're saying. Because "you're a [sexual preference][skin colour][gender]" you "have no clue really"? Do you honestly have an issue with the original article and yet somehow think that saying stuff like this is OK? Or worse, that it's OK if you're talking about a specific preference, skin colour, or gender?

Edit: Updated parent post is much less incendiary and so I retract my vitriol. Leaving my original response here for reference.

neom2• 9 years ago

I edited my original post to just my thought, not my feelings (to your point).

JepZ• 9 years ago

I bet there is a positive correlation between being intelligent and being open minded.

curyous• 9 years ago

Political correctness is used to persecute and bully people. I'm surprised that many don't see it.

charonn06• 9 years ago

How so? Physical violence? Criminal charges?

Avshalom11• 9 years ago

Once a year some body gets fired, twice a year some body gets maligned on twitter. This is considered much worse than the times some one gets fired due to bigotry or murdered due to bigotry.

darawk4• 9 years ago

I think there's a subtle parse here that's being missed. There's an important difference between being a jerk and having a reasonably articulated controversial opinion that you would like to discuss dispassionately and intellectually.

Just to take Altman's example, a jerk might say "I hate those dirty homosexuals, they're ruining marriage for us good heterosexuals Christians". A reasonably articulated opinion might be "What are the social consequences of prevalent homosexuality? Is it possible that some of them are negative? Why is it that the pre-modern civilizations that were hyper-tolerant of homosexuality died out (greece, rome) and were replaced by comparatively intolerant ones?"

IMO the former is not ok. That is venom, and it is unhelpful and should absolutely get you cast out of your job. But the latter is an intellectually expressed idea, an idea that is up for debate and the answer to which may be interesting/consequential. In a society that values technological progress, the latter form must always be acceptable. All ideas must always be open for discussion in that manner. That does not mean that we should tolerate venom, discrimination, or harassment, however.

skrebbel• 9 years ago

IMO the latter is not ok.

Edit suggestion: I think you meant that the first is not ok.

darawk4• 9 years ago

Oh, totally, you're right. Thanks.

dwaltrip5• 9 years ago

Homosexuality is a scientific fact -- people don't choose it like they do a flavor of ice cream.

In this light, how do we reconcile the position that homosexuals should have less rights with the broadly accepted idea of basic human rights?

Edit: To be clear, I'm a strong supporter of free speech -- I think it is one of our most important cultural principles. It just seems to me that the gay rights issue is very clear cut and incredibly personal. Thus, its opponents receive very strong feedback, which isn't that surprising. I do think calm discussion with hard-hitting questions is the best way to address offensive beliefs, but I also realize there isn't always time for that.

darawk4• 9 years ago

To be clear, i'm not arguing that gays should have less rights. However, if I were to put forward such an argument, it would look like this:

There are all kinds of classes of person who's rights we proscribe. Violent criminals, and those who are dangerously insane, come to mind. It's possible that some of those individuals were born that way - that they were predisposed to that behavior in a way that they cannot be 'blamed' for. Yet we feel no compunction about taking away their rights, because we feel that it's necessary to protect the safety of our civilization. So, in short, it's ok to take away a minority group's rights if the exercise of those rights is sufficiently harmful to society. Now, if you are a religious person, you may believe that Homosexuality contributes to moral decay, and the breakdown of sexual and social norms that serve to promote positive familial and social development. In light of that, you may rationally conclude that homosexuality is sufficiently harmful to society that the rights of homosexuals need to be limited.

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is not what I personally believe. But IMO a person presenting their view in the way that I just did should not be censured for doing so. They should be argued with. We should attempt to convince them that our worldview is better. But they shouldn't lose their job, and they shouldn't be made afraid of expressing their view in public.

threatofrain• 9 years ago

While businesses ought not act orthogonally to morality, I'm not sure they should exactly be in the business of it either.

If a person is working in a company with foreign customers, employees, or relations, perhaps they may have a coincidental policy stating, "We do not initiate conversations on Taiwan and China." Another company may have a policy stating, "We do not discuss Apple products outside of this company." These are all restrictions on speech which clearly aren't examples of hate speech, and yet they all seem quite reasonable to me in the promotion of a competitive and harmonious business atmosphere.

freyir• 9 years ago

Statement: "This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics."

Clarification: "I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress."

I can see how people might have misunderstood.

blackholesRhot• 9 years ago

One favorable interpretation is that he’s trying to say something similar to what Richard Muller said here

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkele...

In the 60s and 70s UC Berkeley used to let controversial speakers present. The audience would listen patiently. And then take turns asking questions trying to catch the racist / bigot / Nazi / homophobe / whatever in the midst of logical failures. Now we just protest and shut down ideas via claims of political correctness. It’s not nearly as effective.

candiodari• 9 years ago

It's incredibly absurd how this discussion is going in this site.

People are literally defending the idea that preventing currently unpopular ideas from finding expression, if necessary violently (and certainly through physical obstructions, which is of course violence), is moral and even good.

The obvious problems are, of course, left without any solution.

1) if this idea had been applied as little as 20 years ago, today's society would have been violently repressed.

2) we are not "right" on everything (on the moral front, and outside). We must allow for evolution of our opinions because of changes in our understanding, and because of changes in the real world surrounding us that our morality just doesn't consider at the moment.

3) the potential for abuse of this attitude is incredibly huge.

Generally we should consider that our attitude is right now violently repressing the morality of society as little as 20 years from now. We will fail in that, and will do a lot of damage in the process. It is as simple as that.

We should welcome speakers and friends and colleagues from wildly different viewpoints and environments and engage with them. Clearly, that's the way forward.

Mithaldu5• 9 years ago

Some of these ideas aren't "unpopular", they're answered. They're "we had a world war about this"-answered.

zerostar07• 9 years ago

smart man goes to china, sees something he likes . comes back and apologizes for liking it to appease his crowd.

not a very smart man.

stevenj• 9 years ago

I may get downvoted for saying this but, anecdotally, people today seem way more sensitive and emotional about other people's viewpoints and actions, especially when they disagree with them.

Growing up, it was much easier to have conversations of differing opinions because people not only listened more, but they also listened better. (Perhaps that's in part due to the unique sense of curiosity that kids have.)

Today, it commonly feels like conversations involve hearing aids that have been turned off completely.

Einstein is quoted as half-jokingly saying that the greatest force in the universe is compound interest.

I think it's emotions.

QAPereo6• 9 years ago

People who had no voice have it now; people were angry and offended before, but lacked the freedom to tell you.

Buldak• 9 years ago

I agree. That is not to say that everyone getting upset nowadays is necessarily in the right. But I think what many people remember as calmer, more reasonable discussions of yesteryear are largely a reflection of greater hegemony.

whamlastxmas2• 9 years ago

I think there's a feedback effect. As more people are vocal and unapologetic, other people view this as acceptable and maybe even desirable behavior. Social media has made being outraged very easy and low effort.

nickpp• 9 years ago

Where do you draw the line between the jerk and his freedom of speech and the brilliant genius spouting unpopular, ahead of their time, ideas. How do you make the difference?

If we accept that we can’t, shall we treat them all as jerks and deman a clean, PC world or shall we accept anything at all in the name of protecting freedom of speech?

javajosh2• 9 years ago

Sam, I think the best clarification would be a big long list of examples of what you mean. For example take this list of claims:

   1. Women are inferior.
   2. Gays are evil.
   3. Whites are greedy.
   4. Children are valid sex objects.
   5. Hitler wasn't all bad.
   6. vi is the best editor
   7. Drug users should be killed.
   8. Islam is not compatible with western democracy.
   ...

Immediately on writing this I make a distinction on "ethically falsifiable". Some statements just aren't clear (1,2,3). The ethically falsifiable ones (4,5,7,8) are closest to what you're talking about, I think. If you can control your rising gorge then you could have a rational debate about them! The debate would be about connecting some set of principles to the claim. "Ethical falsifiability" then means that a claim is well-formed enough that a connection to some set of concrete principles can be made.

I also notice that I've instinctively not introduced "scientifically falsifiable" statements, such as these:

   1. Global warming is real.
   2. Vaccinations cause autism.
   3. The earth is flat
   4. Evolution is wrong
   5. Science is a scam.
   6. Putin helped Trump get elected.
   7. Light is a wave in luminferous ether.
   ...

To me, these claims are just not that interesting (the one exception is 5, a meta-assertion about the state of academic scientific inquiry itself). It would take a person with extraordinary credentials to get me to start talking about any of these.

throwaway02552• 9 years ago

He made his original point pretty clearly in my opinion.

As a result of his original post (which was totally harmless and not even slightly controversial), he's forced to write this mea culpa to avoid being labeled a heretic (which is literally the problem he's discussing in his original post), and has to end it with a dig at Donald Trump as if to say to the people threatening him with claims of heresy: "Hey guys, see, I'm on your side. Isn't Donald Trump the worst?"

The irony is just incredible. Nice try Sam, but you made the mistake of trying to reason with these people. You're not a person making arguments; to the people you're talking about in that original post, you're merely an embodiment of whatever ideology they think you're representing at the time.

Your critics aren't even concerned with what they think as individuals, they're purely concerned with the aggregate of what their contacts on social media will pretend to think publicly. Trying to debate them on an individual or intellectual level seems pointless, especially through any kind of broadcast medium. Your ideas will get through to some, but only the response labeling you a heretic will be shared.

There are jokes people will laugh at when they're in a dark room, but if the lights are on and their family is watching, they will shake their head disapprovingly instead. Politics is the joke, and social media is the light and family in that room.

javajosh2• 9 years ago

I agree with Sam's point, but disagree that he made it clearly. The best thing he could do is make a list of examples. My other comment in this thread explains more thoroughly what I mean by that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941597

Avshalom11• 9 years ago

Thing is: nobody threatened to murder him, no one called for a boycott of Y Combinator. Nobody did anything except disagree with him. Somehow an insignificant fraction of humanity disagreeing with him was too much for him to deal with though.

whamlastxmas2• 9 years ago

It is probably difficult to voice an unpopular opinion and have it be met with so much derision by people whose opinions on business matters you respect so deeply. Unfortunately it is quite common for a pragmatic and reasonable professionals to have less than reasonable personal beliefs. Sam cares about what people think about him which is healthy and separates him from the sociopaths of the world.

oceanghost• 9 years ago

Before startups, there was this concept of "professionalism".

The core idea of which was, you would be able to accomplish your goals in a wide variety of adverse conditions.

quantumofmalice• 9 years ago

I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress.

Well, Sam, you didn't say that.

Rather, the totalitarian left, exactly who the article was criticizing, sensed heresy and pounced, without any goodwill or thoughtfulness.

They did exactly what you implied they would do, and now you are apologizing for them doing it.

2017, everybody.

api3• 9 years ago

We seem to have a totalitarian left that wants an intellectual monoculture vs. a totalitarian right that wants an ethnic and cultural monoculture.

I've been rediscovering libertarian ideas lately and realizing in the process just how profoundly and deeply the discourse has shifted toward authoritarianism across the whole political spectrum over the last 15 years. I really blame 9/11. The West lost its collective mind after that event and still has not recovered. Apparently terrorism works.

Economics is probably the other factor. Stocks are up but the street has not recovered. Totalitarian ideas always grow when people feel economically stressed. I think it might even be instinct, sort of like how chimps get aggressive and raid when under stress. Totalitarianism is about preparing to raid the neighboring tribe.

marcelluspye3• 9 years ago

"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics."

He literally did say that. Maybe that's not what he meant, and the gist of what he was saying was correct, but he said what he said. But go ahead and vilify the people who took issue with what reads essentially like a utilitarian apology for homophobia.

A Clarification

Related Stories