
E Pur Si Muove - firloop
http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove
======
Diederich
Shortly prior to the recent US presidential election, I worked next to a nice,
smart young man from California who went to a well-known progressive
university in the bay area. Politics was very rarely discussed at work, but in
the weeks before the election, there was some cross talk in the isles.

He trusted me enough to message me privately that he was planning to vote for
Trump. At that time, I was quite anxious about the thought of a Trump
presidency, but I'm pretty far along the open-minded scale, so we chatted
about it privately a bit.

My co-worker asked me to not speak about his position and to not let anyone
else know about it, because he feared that his 'out of place' political views
would, in his words, 'indirectly limit his career options.'

Why he supported Trump is pretty irrelevant, but I found his opinion
reasonable, though I disagreed with his overall choice.

You know what? I agreed with his concern at the time, and I still agree with
it. Consciously and otherwise, I think that quite a few of the fine
progressive folk that we find ourselves surrounded by here in the bay area
would hold such an opinion against him in important ways.

I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would
otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly,
that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized)
by progressives.

At this point, I can't imagine a path forward that has much of a chance of
bearing fruit.

~~~
abraae
Leaning in from outside the US, the path forward is obvious.

"Progressives" should embrace guns and reject abortion.

That would make them palatable to these mysterious deplorables that seem to
hold sway over the US political system, giving them access to the halls of
power.

Then said progressives, having kept their powder dry, could expend it on what
really matters - convincing the deplorables that science is a thing, and that
climate change will kill us all if we don't act.

~~~
reitanqild
I know this is a joke and I also think American gun laws could need some
adjustment.

That said what I've always been told is to start with myself: maybe my
"opponents" are dumb.

That doesn't help anything but my ego.

Instead I'd recommend looking into common ground or another way to present my
arguments.

I disagree deeply with a good number of you but still I think most of you
don’t realize most of the time since I either shut up or at least present my
views somewhat carefully in the hope that someone might get some inspiration.

I've also changed my own, long held opinions on certain topics (e.g. drug
policy) not because anyone here ridiculed me but because somebody took the
time to explain instead of shouting troll, downvoting and flagging.

I wish more people here would opt for that solution.

~~~
abraae
Yeah, I probably phrased my post overly provocatively but I wasn't trying to
be funny, just logical. And thank you for a reasoned and courteous response.
My thoughts were:

1) Mass shootings are horrific, and it seems insane that anyone can own an
assault rifle with such low barriers, but at the same time, death from gun
violence is statistically low compared to, say, auto accidents. If being in
favour of stricter gun regulation to save a few tens of thousand of lives (in
a country of hundreds of millions) means alienating a huge percentage of the
population, then why not let that one slide. Things will be no worse than they
are now.

2) Many people (certainly me) would say that abortion is a woman's right but
even if abortion is illegal, back street abortions will still take place. They
may be in unsanitory and dangerous conditions, and some deaths will result.
But again, statistically speaking, that will only impact a small percentage of
the population.

3) Climate change however, seems like it presents an existential danger that
could wipe us out as a species. Our growth driven economies seem unequipped to
deal with this ultimate tragedy of the commons. Statistically, it will kill
100% of us, or severely degrade our grandchildren's lives, unless we somehow
get our shit together on a global scale.

To use a crappy analogy, imagine we're all locked inside a giant container
with limited air. There's a blocked air vent at the top, which we can only
reach of we all stand on each other's shoulders - i.e. cooperate.

In such circumstances, why continue bickering over what music we should play
while we wait for suffocation? Surely it would be better to listen to the
other guys music, if it got him onside, and allowed us to move away from our
tribal stances and work together on some action against the common threat.

~~~
prepend
While climate change is extremely serious, I don’t think there are any models
that show it causing human extinction. The second half of your statement is
more accurate to show degradation. But pairing it with extinction makes it
harder to see your point through the hyperbole.

------
Buldak
The author says that it's safer to discuss "controversial" ideas in Beijing
than America, but I wonder if that's partly because the ideas in question
aren't actually controversial in Beijing. Presumably the ideas the author has
in mind are those that might be interpreted to impugn certain disadvantaged
groups. But if I found it more easy to say "gay people are degenerates" in
Beijing, I don't think I would take that as evidence that free speech norms
are more robust there--it might just mean that homophobia is the norm.

~~~
volgo
A lot of people think you have to watch what you say in China, and they almost
always are people who have never been there. There are very specific political
things you can't do, but otherwise literally not one gives a shit about you.
You can say what you want, and unless you specifically go organize a large
group of people and screaming in public something politically sensitive, no
one cares. Ideally in a society we don't want those people anyways.

~~~
acjohnson55
I found that to be the case in Cuba. It actually felt more liberating than a
typical American city, in that I could walk down the street alone drinking a
beer at night in the middle of the city without fear. However, I also know
that, like most totalitarian regimes, they'll allow a good bit of flex until
they decide not to anymore, and then the crackdown is swift.

~~~
jetcata
As a tourist that's how you felt, but did you speak to the people who live
there? What you'll find is a people scared to criticize their dictatorship
government, which is incredibly rich and lives a life of luxury whilst their
citizens are very poor.

~~~
acjohnson55
Yep, I did. In fact, our government-provided tour guide was pretty open about
that. I'm sure he felt that he could be open with us because the government
largely doesn't care that much about micromanaging the impressions tourists
get. So monitoring what he tells us simply is not a high priority. They care
about long-term domestic control.

My point was just that for any short amount of time in most totalitarian
states, you're unlikely to encounter the arbitrary crackdowns that have a
chilling effect on free expression for people who live their permanently.

------
ealexhudson
I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic
engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and
not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science.

Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal
safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's
always difficult to get on the right side of the line) are inherently
dangerous.

Particularly when we start involving healthcare, a "move fast/break things"
type approach can be extremely detrimental, for example.

~~~
jstanley
Having an ethical outlook is a great idea. And it's good to criticise ideas
you think are unethical.

The point of the post is that just because a person presents an unethical idea
doesn't make that person universally unethical. The point is to separate the
ideas from the person presenting them, so that people can feel free to present
novel ideas without fearing damage to their reputation if the ideas are
unpopular.

~~~
SamBam
> The entire point of the post is to separate the ideas from the person
> presenting them.

But that _wasn 't_ the entire point of the post. The post also didn't like
people criticizing life-extending research, when the examples were people
criticizing the direction of the research itself.

The post was hazy about what, exactly, it wanted people to stop doing, but it
seemed to dislike _any_ criticism.

Whether the "life extension is bad for the environment" argument was a good
argument or not, criticism of the ethics of work _must_ be part of free
discussion.

~~~
sskates
The article made the distinction between criticism of an idea and criticism of
the person behind the idea. "Of course we can and should say that ideas are
mistaken, but we can’t just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the
actual idea." It says right there that criticism of an idea is welcome.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Moreover, "heresy" implies that a person becomes heretic - socially despicable
- by embracing an idea. This is what the author opposes. And for good reason -
embracing the concept of heresy means you're only allowed to think things
sanctioned by the current sociopolitical philosophy. And since every society
has some amount of batshit insane ideas it believes, allowing for heresy means
cutting out the safest / most peaceful way of correcting that insanity.

------
kfcm
This isn't happening in only SF, or only in tech. It's happening all over, and
across the spectrum of ideas.

Is the argument that social media is tearing apart our society correct? I
think it goes deeper than that, and that it's tech in general. We've grown
impatient with right-swipe, immediate communication (whether through texting
or calling on a cell phone; remember when you had to find a phone, or wait
until you got to home/work?), immediate gratification. No time or desire to
think things through, just react.

The happiest time in the past 25 years was the first half of 2016, when I
swore off almost all tech for 7 months, road tripped, and visited with people
--strangers--and learned what made them tick. Guess what--not technology. And
I was relaxed, happy, free.

Technology isn't the cause of a toxic society, but it definitely is a/the
catalyst.

~~~
curun1r
The lack of patience seems right on to me. I get the feeling that a lot of
these discussions where people feel afraid to speak their mind are issues
where the orthodoxy feels it has resolved the issue and moved on to talking
about something new. They're tired of having conversations they see as
repetitive. And when someone questions some part of that perceived-resolved
issue, there's a lack of patience to, as they see it, go back and discuss it
in a rational and level-headed manner and, instead, a it's easier to apply a
stigmatized label that connotes that the person is somehow behind the times
and move on to talking about the subjects that interest them.

With more patience could come calm and reasoned responses that could help move
other people towards a more progressive outlook. But I agree that our society
and the somewhat-recent trend towards immediacy of everything in our lives has
led to a desire to have the same immediacy in conflict resolution. We don't
tolerate as many diverging opinions because they'd take too long to integrate.

~~~
erik_seaberg
Thank you, this goes a long way to explaining why some people say "but it's
${CURRENT_YEAR}" as if that were an argument.

------
throwaway8766
I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms
of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a
flame war).

It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to
me, but in a major city I can _never_ mention these things or I'll immediately
become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on
my behavior at work; you just can't say that you believe certain things are
right/wrong if it goes against norms.

~~~
ak_yo
From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are
voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How
am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is
immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was
taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut
me, or trusted me.

It's not that you _can 't_ have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also
not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going
to feel OK about it.

~~~
alien_at_work
>How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is
immoral?

So everyone needs to ensure they hold no oppinions you might find offensive or
be homeless? It goes both ways: how am I supposed to work with someone who
thinks it's ok to ostracize people for personal beliefs?

~~~
ak_yo
I agree, we're making the same general point -- it does seem crazy to ask
someone to "ensure they hold no offensive opinions". So why, for example,
should the opinions of the person who wants to speak their mind about the
immorality of gay marriage get precedence over the opinions of the person who
thinks they should be allowed to get married?

~~~
alien_at_work
I agree with that. "Don't go around pissing off co-workers" is a sensible
rule. But it's also our responsibility to not look for reasons to be offended.
If you ask me about something I'm not going to lie. But I'm not going to shove
it in your face either, if I think it might offend.

------
throwaway34689
Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order):

\- Deep South (18 years - born + raised) \- Boston MA (5 years @ college then
job) \- NYC (6+ years) \- Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) \- San Diego (1yr @
startup) \- Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company)

I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid
and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never encountered
such a self-righteous, smug and viscerally hostile attitude to other parts of
the country, especially the South and Midwest (where I grew up). Someone
literally told me once that "people from the South eat their children" in a
half joking tone.

I don't think you can call it "racism" per se, but definitely the most
oppressive form of prejudice I've ever encountered, by far, was found among
people I worked and came in contact with in the SF Bay Area.

EDIT: Of course, I met (and stayed friends) with really amazing people in SF
Bay Area. People with different viewpoints than mine that really expanded my
horizons along a lot of different axes. And the raw intelligence of most
people I interacted with - technical and otherwise - is off the charts. But
the attitudes I mentioned above were expressed frequently enough to leave an
impression on me.

~~~
guelo
As if southerners aren't constantly cursing or making fun of "San Francisco
values".

~~~
creaghpatr
People in the south don't think about San Francisco at all. Only the Fox News
anchors based in New York but charged with representing the politics of the
south care about San Francisco.

~~~
guelo
People in SF don't think about the south either besides in political
discussions.

~~~
jonny_eh
Or when it's time for BBQ.

------
Houshalter
Most of the comments here are about culture war and missing the more
interesting point of the essay. We knew political tribalism was getting bad in
SF. But isn't insane that things like life extension and genetic engineering
are becoming a victim to this? I wouldn't have even thought these issues were
controversial or political.

These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences
of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be
very concerned about this.

Another very important point was missed here. The smartest people can have the
absolute weirdest political beliefs. They are the least likely to conform. And
the most likely to not shut up about their weird ideas even when the
consequences are obvious.

~~~
GuiA
_> These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The
consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we
should be very concerned about this. _

That's just like, your opinion man.

If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if
controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else,
who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare)

These issues are fundamentally political, and there is no reason that they
should be above any form of discourse or criticism.

If someone's feelings are hurt because there is a backlash against their
technoscientism, that's on no one else but them.

~~~
Houshalter
>If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if
controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else,
who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare)

Why not? People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest
person on Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and
communication systems far more powerful than the military could have afforded
50 years ago.

But this is beside the point. These ideas can and should be debated. Literally
ostracizing people and thinking they are evil for having different opinions on
them, is absurd.

~~~
edmccard
>People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest person on
Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and communication
systems far more powerful than the military could have afforded 50 years ago.

Which doesn't really matter unless you have a time machine that can send them
back 50 years. At least, none of the poor people I've known (including myself)
have ever said "I can't afford to give my children better opportunities, let
alone leave them something in my will, but hey! at least they'll have nifty
pocket computers!"

~~~
Houshalter
Sorry, I just don't see the world in terms of "anything that makes one person
better off, necessarily makes someone worse off." That kind of world view is
toxic to progress. It completely flies in the face of everything we've
achieved in the last 2 centuries.

------
dmode
I have no idea what this article was about. As someone who grew up in India,
lived extensively in Europe and Arizona before settling down in the Bay Area,
and travel to China 2-3 times a year, I find Bay Area by far to be the most
open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived. And it is not even
comparable. And it is borne out by simple stats. People vote with their feet.
Bay Area is almost a majority minority area, with equal representations of
white folks, south asians, east asians, hispanics (although smaller African
American population). This is not a coincidence. This is because people here
are naturally accepting of other cultures, view points etc.

And comparing this to Beijing is laughable. When I travel to China, my life is
put on hold as you cannot access Gmail, Facebook, Whatsapp and myriad of other
mundane websites. I dare not write anything negative about the Chinese
government when I am there.

India is also becoming intolerant by the day, where even the though of eating
beef can lead of mob lynching or ending up in jail. Even benign things such as
a Bollywood movie (Padmavati) is in trouble for imagined cultural threats.

I have lived extensively in Netherlands and Denmark. I love those countries as
they are progressive in many ways. Except for the acceptance of a brown man. I
don't hold any grudge, it is what it is and it is difficult for such a small
country to be open about cultural integration.

I have found Bay Area to be an open community, where no matter you background
you just seamlessly integrate. You go to work without thinking how you have to
tweak your accent or deep dive in cultural norms to progress through corporate
hierarchy (I have done that a lot as a consultant). All it matters is your
work and output.

Sure, we have yet to figure out how to approach "tolerance of intolerance",
but it will evolve over time and we will arrive at a sweet spot. Many
countries have taken a extreme free speech stance on "tolerance of
intolerance" \- for example, UK allowed one Egyptian preacher to openly preach
hatred and violence from the streets of London. Is that a good thing for
society ? I am not so convinced.

~~~
jdtang13
In America, you can criticize the government but cannot talk at all about
controversial social issues. Many Americans abide by the rule: "do not talk
about politics and religion among polite company." I've known people who have
legitimately ended friendships over political opinions. Such a thing is almost
unheard of in China.

In China, you cannot criticize the government but you can talk all day about
social issues, and you will actually hear a diverse range of different
opinions on hot-button issues. I've heard all sorts of wacky and very
interesting opinions, many of which have forced me to think deeply about my
beliefs, when talking with people in Beijing.

~~~
nostrademons
You can certainly talk about controversial social issues in America, you just
have to be prepared for people to not like you.

I think you may be running into another facet of American culture and
misinterpreting interactions through that lens. In America, you pick your
tribe. If you don't like someone, don't hang out with them! Friendships tend
to come and go based on your circumstances of the moment, and if they fade
away, it's no big deal, you'll make new friends. While in China (and many
other places in the world), you're born into a tribe, and people will make
significant compromises to their individual happiness to maintain
relationships. Many Asian families exhibit behavior that borders on child
abuse by American standards and would result in a kid cutting that parent out
of their life, while such a thing is basically unheard of in Chinese culture.

I've got one Chinese parent and my wife is full Taiwanese-American. This was
an uncomfortable cultural difference for both of us to learn, and we still
sometimes feel the loss of that social web. But American society makes more
sense when you view relationships through the lens of "people only maintain
them while it is mutually beneficial and fulfilling for both parties, and if
one person doesn't feel like the relationship is worth it they'll end it, and
so your actions better bring joy and fulfillment to those around you."

~~~
geebee
You could end up getting fired, though.

~~~
nostrademons
So then you get fired, and get another job. Or found a company that ends up
dominating the company you got fired from, as the heads of IBM, Apple, and
Pixar all did.

American business culture is the same as social culture: association is
voluntary, and once either party no longer finds it worthwhile, bye. The flip
side of that is that there's relatively little judgment attached to being
fired. Future employers may ask a few extra questions to try to determine
whether the factors that got you fired from your last job are likely to impact
your performance in the next one, but if it really is a matter of cultural
mismatch (like a difference in political opinions would be), then you can
basically be sure that there is some company out there that doesn't care.

------
CPLX
California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember.

Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about
you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs.
It's quite lovely.

~~~
olympus
This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being
too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless
it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway.

NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV
because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually
prefers working with the people he's complaining about.

~~~
leroy_masochist
Well that, and he runs a company whose value proposition is very explicitly
tied to SV being the best place to start a startup, so it would be kind of
awkward if he moved.

~~~
olympus
From the YC FAQ:

"Can we do it without moving to where you are? Sorry, no. We tried this once,
and by Demo Day that startup was way behind the rest. What we do, we have to
do in person. We would not be doing a startup a favor by not making them come
to YC events in person."

Their stated reason is more about dealing with people face to face, and less
about SV. It also sounds like they only tried it once, which probably isn't a
big enough sample size considering that most startups aren't successful in the
first place. It sounds like they never gave places other than SV a fair shake.

~~~
leroy_masochist
Agreed on the face-to-face point, but YC also used to have very strongly
worded language on the FAQ that said, essentially, that setting your startup
on the path to success meant moving to SV, due to the strong network effects.
I can't find it now (probably because they've updated it) but it pretty
closely tracked the language in this PG essay:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html)

------
workthrowaway27
I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus
climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview
can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism
specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about
issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.

~~~
ak_yo
In what world are these opinions not voiced? I don't think this argument
stands up to empirical scrutiny -- there's an incredibly robust network of
vocally conservative student organizations.

~~~
workthrowaway27
See this list and go to the most recent years:
[https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-
database/](https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/)

When the list started it was fairly evenly distributed between right and left
leaning speakers being disinvited. Now it's much more commonly right leaning
speakers.

~~~
geofft
That's about _speakers_ being disinvited from campus, not _views_ not being
represented. There are a number of problems with that analysis:

1\. Several speakers are overrepresented (I see a bunch of Milo invitations),
which could well just reflect their aggressiveness at getting themselves
invited / the strength of their own PR team. If one political side wants to
make persecution their thing, they'll show up more commonly in that database.

2\. In recent years, we've had a bunch of new forums for dissemination of
ideas, _which is a good thing_. Twitter didn't exist in 2002. YouTube didn't
exist in 2002. Podcasts didn't exist in 2002. Smartphones in people's pockets
didn't exist in 2002. Today, anyone who wants to know what any of these
speakers' opinions are can find out, easily, what they are, without needing
them invited to campus. (And anyone who doesn't will just skip the talk
anyway.)

3\. In Milo's case specifically, he wanted to out a bunch of undocumented
students on-stage. That I think doesn't fit the profile of political views
being censored. (I agree that preventing him from speaking technically counts
as censorship, but it's a very different discussion.)

4\. Fundamentally, this list and the original article here both suffer from a
blind belief in the "Great Man" theory. If person X doesn't express an
opinion, or publicize their idea, or something, chances are absurdly high that
someone else will have the same opinion or idea, too. If Newton were
imprisoned for his alchemy, however unjust that might have been _for Newton as
a person_ , Leibniz would still have invented calculus. What I'd like to see
is if certain types of _ideas_ are being censored, not whether certain
individuals who happen to hold those ideas are being censored.

~~~
workthrowaway27
It's true that some speakers are over-represented, but I don't think that
changes the trend substantially. I also don't see how you can draw a
distinction between disinviting speakers and censoring the ideas they came to
talk about.

And yes, there are new forums for dissemination of ideas, but that doesn't
mean they are equally open to all ideas. Some things you can't write without
being shouted down. This is distinct from criticism of the idea. These are
personal attacks on the person who voiced the idea in the first place.

I don't understand your last point. There are absolutely things you can't talk
about freely at universities, for example: immigration, gender differences in
personality, variations in IQ across races, etc. I don't see how you can take
an objective look at university culture and say anything otherwise.

~~~
geofft
> _I also don 't see how you can draw a distinction between disinviting
> speakers and censoring the ideas they came to talk about._

Milo is perhaps the best example here: Milo comes to campuses to cause a
spectacle, not to spread new ideas. Sure, he's talking about some ideas. But
that's not his primary motivation.

Milo is not an academic. Would he be happy with letting some academic go in
his stead and present his same ideas in the form of an academic lecture?

> _There are absolutely things you can 't talk about freely at universities,
> for example: immigration, gender differences in personality, variations in
> IQ across races, etc._

Do you have any evidence for this?

(Note that you can't talk about things like variations in IQ across races _as
if they existed more strongly than they actually do_ or mean something they
don't, and expect to be taken seriously. But that's not universities censoring
dissident politics, that's universities expecting basic scientific literacy
instead of people pushing a political agenda in the guise of science. The
concept of IQ is an idea that came from the academy and has been refined by
the academy; using an old understanding of IQ and what it means is essentially
an abandonment of science.)

------
chasing
'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like
pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and
radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to
their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous
for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a
memorable quote I heard this year.'

 _That 's_ toxic? First, sounds very straw-man. Second, okay, someone said
they think something's unethical. Maybe it is? Maybe they have a point they
didn't articulate well? Maybe they're straight-up wrong! If you're arguing for
free speech, then you're arguing in favor of people being vocally critical of
ideas you hold dear. Hiding under the pillow fort of "California is so
intolerant" makes it seem like what you're actually complaining about is
people disagreeing with _you_.

~~~
untog
Yeah, I think this gets to my core objection to the essay. It presents as
being in favour of free speech, yet also implicitly says that anyone
questioning progress (in more or less any form) is dangerous.

The idea that you should be able to say or do whatever you want and _also_ be
shielded from criticism of those ideas is silly. Especially when you're some
of the most rich and powerful people in the 21st century. No-one is stopping
you from doing anything, they're just questioning you about it. If you can't
(or don't want to) answer those questions then maybe you should consider why
that is.

~~~
cirgue
Saying "you are unethical for doing this research" is very different from
saying "I think there are serious problems with extending human life". One is
a legitimate criticism and is vital to public debate. The other is name
calling.

~~~
untog
Sure. But does it _really_ matter? Are we that sensitive?

I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people
might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics
(which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical
might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension?

Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be called a name or
two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to
be disparaged in the name of progress.

~~~
cirgue
> Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when
> you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in
> the name of progress.

I don't really know what to make of your interpretation of Altman's statement.
He was making the point that if a physicist has homophobic views, we should
not dismiss their contributions to physics for that reason alone. Put another
way, we should be tolerant of people, but not necessarily of their views.

> Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive?

Sensitivity isn't the issue: it's that calling someone names for reasons that
are entirely speculative (and longer lifespan == ecological catastrophe is
definitely that) is the domain of at least two other groups: grade-school
children and the alt-right.

~~~
chasing
Remember that Altman is most likely paraphrasing his interpretation of a
hypothetical person or class of people responding to the idea. So parsing
Altman's quote too deeply might not be useful. It's entirely possible no one
ever actually said those words.

People tend to "tune" the details of a story to fit their argument. Especially
when they feel aggrieved.

Also, the comment assumes a certain supremacy of science (or physics) over
social concerns which everyone might not agree with. Physics is wonderful. But
as far as improving people's lives, decrying and eliminating homophobia might
also be a very important thing to do. So to say "I'm willing to sacrifice the
well-being of gay people so physics can progress..." Not everyone may agree
that the exchange is worth it. And that's valid.

------
ivankirigin
There is a difference between thoughtful disagreement and treating the speaker
as an outcast. We should engage and attack ideas based on merits.

One of my favorite ideas here recently is a "steel man" argument. It's putting
the best version of an opposing argument forward before explaining why it's
wrong.

This charity to the people behind the ideas is missing when you're looking for
a soundbite or worse looking to banish to an out group.

------
conanbatt
I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political
correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded.

Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years
ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even
more afraid.

The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired
if i publicly said i agreed with it, even though i never read it or did
anything of the sort. That to me is a ridiculous state of things.

~~~
dguaraglia
The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a
constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU.
Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and
telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how
flawed or ignorant they are.)

Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one
of them. I should know, I grew up there.

~~~
Houshalter
Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of
studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a
bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was
published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an
"anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.)

>they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant
they are.)

Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Democracy
sort of works because we tolerate each other anyway. When political
polarization increases too much, bad things happen.

~~~
tomtheelder
> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of
> studies.

Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a
lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending
conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful
science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick
studies that sort of reinforced his preexisting beliefs, which is kind of the
opposite of science.

~~~
Houshalter
It wasn't the strongest possible argument for his case IMO. There are other
better studies and statistics I would have referenced. But it was good enough
and the points were solid,. That there are observable personality differences
between men and women, and we shouldn't expect perfect gender ratios.

~~~
dguaraglia
> That there are observable personality differences between men and women, and
> we shouldn't expect perfect gender ratios.

This assumption always bothers me. What do you think defines behavior? Is it
purely culture, or purely biology? How do you rule out culture when you don't
have a culture that promotes equality?

~~~
Houshalter
It seems perfectly plausible to me that it's biological. E.g. identical twins
have similar personality measures. But it does it matter? Even if it is
cultural, it still disputes the feminist argument that the disparity is due to
sexism in tech. Or the effectiveness of Google's diversity programs that
Damore was arguing against.

~~~
dguaraglia
> Even if it is cultural, it still disputes the feminist argument that the
> disparity is due to sexism in tech.

This sentence contradicts itself. If it _is_ cultural, then it'd be most
likely based on sexist stereotypes that we force on our kids from an early age
(mind you, when I say sexist I don't mean in the "actively nasty towards a
gender" way, but in the "you define people by their gender even before you
know them" way.)

If that's the case, then that sexist behavior permeates the culture, which
means _tech companies are not going to be devoid of it_. Which would make the
disparity based on sexism in tech (and everywhere else.)

I think people get overly defensive about being called "sexist" because they
perceive it as an attack on _them_. It is not. The moment you realize that,
it's so much easier to get out of the "them vs. us" mentality and actually
take constructive criticism better.

~~~
Houshalter
You've done a bait and switch on me. I'm talking about personality types.
_Maybe_ you can argue that women are less likely to be e.g. introverts,
because of culture. But that has nothing to do with the tech industry and they
can't change that.

And that was basically Damore's argument. You have personality types like INTP
being vastly overrepresented among programmers, yet 4 times less common among
women. You have the same percentage of young girls interested in computer
science at a young age as work in the tech industry. You have studies trying
to raise kids as neutrally as possible and still finding boys prefer trucks
and girls prefer dolls. It's definitely not culture.

~~~
dguaraglia
> You've done a bait and switch on me.

No I haven't.

> ... that has nothing to do with the tech industry and they can't change
> that...

So what you are saying is that:

a) We don't know if this is a cultural issue or not

b) So the tech industry shouldn't do anything about it

Huh?

> You have studies trying to raise kids as neutrally as possible and still
> finding boys prefer trucks and girls prefer dolls. It's definitely not
> culture.

There's definite proof to the contrary: certain cultures (like Soviet Russia,
for example) had a much bigger female representation in STEM fields than
others [1]. Heck, even Mexico _today_ has a higher representation of females
in CS degrees than the US [2]

How do you explain that if "it's definitely not culture"???

[1] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-
had-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-a-better-
record-of-training-women-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/)

[2]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/th...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/there-
are-only-3-countries-where-girls-feel-more-comfortable-with-math-than-
boys/284272/)

~~~
Houshalter
I'm saying the disparity is due to personality difference. Which, even if
cultural, can't be changed by the tech industry. I find it very implausible
that the differences are cultural at any level. And many possible cultural
explanations have been ruled out.

Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have
less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM
because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people have the
freedom to pursue their actual interests. And so statistical differences in
interests start to matter.

~~~
dguaraglia
> And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out.

You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Maybe this is
just an intuitive perception that you have, rather than a fact? I actually
quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them,
but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist.

> Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people
> have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into
> STEM because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people
> have the freedom to pursue their actual interests.

So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that _culture
plays a major role_? Unless you use the word 'culture' in a very narrow
definition that only includes things such as food, drinks and folk dances.

Communist countries, especially Russia, made a big deal about erasing gender
inequality (they saw gender roles as another form of oppression.) That's the
main reason why Russia had such a high participation of women in STEM, it
wasn't because "parents would force them because they were poor."

I'm all for having a conversation about this, but are you willing to take new
evidence and process it, rather than keep pushing your intuitive notion?

~~~
Houshalter
>You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up.

Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread.

>I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no
retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist.

What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that.

>So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture
plays a major role?

In poor countries, yes. How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic
growth? I had trouble finding statistics, the only stat I could find is this:

>In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about
16%.

Which is about the ratio of women in STEM in the West.

~~~
dguaraglia
> Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread.

I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one
of them links to anything.

> What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed
> that.

You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet
cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK
has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger
participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact,
Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia
for comparable economic growth.

Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown
at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women
participate on STEM fields _today_ that they did in the 80s and 90s. If
"economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite.

Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your
statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2]

> How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth?

Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin
Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth _or_ cultural
shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand.

> In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at
> about 16%

What makes you think that _patent filings_ of all things represents _industry
participation_? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no
males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your
only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a
better reference.

[1] [https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-
dev...](https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-
report-2017)

[2]
[http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...](http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-
in-science-2017-en.pdf)

~~~
Houshalter
Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. Would you
really predict the Arab states, with their incredibly progressive views on
feminism, to have higher percentage of female researchers? It really isn't
weird to you that Russia, in just 20 years, went back to the same levels of
everyone else after all the "progress" they made? Cultures don't change that
quickly.

The statistics are nearly useless anyway because of how differently they are
measured. Women are much more represented in "soft sciences" like biology. But
in math etc, the percentage has been pretty consistent. _Math majors_ show a
huge increase in women. But when you dig into it, it turns out that they are
going into it to become math teachers. And the actual percentage of female
Math researchers is the lowest of all of STEM. And pretty consistent through
time. And our culture has changed a hell of a lot.

Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? You want some links and
statistics? Try reading this: [http://www.sci-
hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x](http://www.sci-
hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x)

>gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very
large’ (d= 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than
men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian
societies than in gender- inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts
social role theory but is consistent with evolution- ary, attributional, and
social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests
appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests
possible biologic influences.

d=1.18 is one of the largest effect sizes I've seen in a social science. It
means something like 93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average
woman.

~~~
dguaraglia
> Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine.

My "hypothesis" is that without trying to eliminate the cultural factors,
we'll never be able to actually measure how strongly the alleged biological
factors affect behavior. So no, my hypothesis doesn't explain anything,
because it doesn't try to.

> And our culture has changed a hell of a lot.

Our academic scientific culture is barely 200 years old. _Female
participation_ in academic culture is way younger than that, with most of the
earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their time
because they didn't behave like "normal women". Our current cultural system is
thousands of years old, yet you expect that the last 100 years of science to
have fixed _all disparities accrued over millennia_. Doesn't sound very
realistic.

> Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology?

Why is it implausible to you that it is culture, when there are reams of data
showing that different cultures perform differently? You are cherrypicking
data that supports your thesis and completely ignoring everything else. Why?

Notice that even the paper you link is hedging when making the claim: "In
contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across
cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."
But you, somehow, are 100% sure. Weird. Makes me think you have an agenda
first, and look for evidence to back it up second, just like Damore did.

~~~
Houshalter
Before I go any further, just answer this one question. Is there literally any
conceivable evidence that could convince you that you are wrong? That there
are biological differences between men and women?

This is a basic scientific question. It has nothing to do with politics. You
accuse me of "having an agenda" just because I disagree with you. You accuse
damore of being "alt right" and defend his firing, just because he believes a
relatively uncontroversial scientific claim. You accuse me of "cherrypicking
data" when I've done nothing of the sort. Yet apparently cherrypicking a few
random countries with different stats to support your bizarre culture theory
is fine. But as I've shown your model doesn't make any sense of the data
either, which apparently isn't a problem for you.

What even is your theory? Yeah, it's "culture", sure. But what predictions
does that make? How can it be disproved?

If I show, for example, that there's the same percentage of female computer
science graduates as female tech workers, does that disprove it? Does your
theory predict that? "But the sexism is happening before the industry then."
Ok.

So what about the same percentage of female high schoolers interested in
computer science as female computer science majors. Does your theory predict
that? "The sexism is happening before then."

Well we can go back to middle school. Hell let's go back to early childhood,
and we find boys and girls show strong preferences for different kinds of
toys. That seems pretty damning for your theory to me.

But that's far from the only evidence. Does your model predict neurological
differences between male and female brains? That doesn't make any sense if all
differences must be explained by culture.

>Female participation in academic culture is way younger than that, with most
of the earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their
time because they didn't behave like "normal women"

Exactly! 160 years ago women were excluded from many areas. There were no
women doctors, few women at universities, no women lawyers, etc.

Now, in 2017, we've reversed all that. There are more women getting university
educations than men! They make up 51% of law students, 50% of medical
students, 75% of psychology majors, etc, etc. And yet in engineering they make
up 20%. And it's been that way, consistently, for decades. And shows no signs
of changing even as culture continues to change.

Think about this. It makes _no sense_ to your theory. Why should culture
change so quickly for every other area but engineering.

(And also why the double standard of caring so much about gender ratios in
engineering, and not any other area like psychology or university in general?)

~~~
dguaraglia
> Is there literally any conceivable evidence that could convince you that you
> are wrong?

Oh, for sure, if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt culture is not a factor
in decision making.

> That there are biological differences between men and women?

This is not what I am arguing. There's a huge difference between "there are
differences between men and women" and "they comprehensibly explain the
current gender ratio in the Tech industry".

> That seems pretty damning for your theory to me.

Not really, because for the fifth time: my "theory" (call it: my anti-theory)
is we don't know _the extent_ of how potential gender differences _might
affect_ career selection, as long as we have a culture that has embedded
_strong gender identities_ even before the first career decision is made. Even
if you think girls should play with toy ovens while boys play with toy guns,
you can just discount the effect such boxing will have long term.

\----

For the rest of your post, let me draw an analogy:

Let's say that we are working out of the same office. At some point you are
trying to load a website (say, Hacker News) and it doesn't load. You ask me if
I know what might be going on:

Me: "Yeah, the WiFi has been terrible today, we called the management company
to come and fix it".

You after trying to ping google.com, and getting about 50% packet loss: "I
know what it is, it's the database they use to store the articles, it's broken
and that's why Hacker News won't load".

Me: "Wait, but the internet is really bad"

You: "Yeah, but there's _some_ connectivity, so it _must_ be the database"

Me: "Have you tried pinging the host?"

You: "No, but I pinged google.com"

Me: "Have you tried _loading_ google.com?"

You: "No, because I know it's the database"

Me: "But... how? Nobody else can't connect to anything because the internet
sucks. Even if the internet worked perfectly, there's a bunch of other stuff
besides the database that could be broken."

You: "Is there any piece of evidence that will convince you it's the database?
Why are you _so against_ it being the database? I _know_ it's the database!"

That's pretty much the conversation we've been having over the last few days.
If a coworker of yours did that, you'd think twice before asking for their
next time you have to debug something, wouldn't you?

~~~
Houshalter
Weird analogy. But from my point of view you are the guy screaming about the
database. Replace "database" with "culture". You can't even consider the
possibility it's not the database. No amount of tests or other possible
explanations seem to have any effect on you.

You latch on to one tiny scrap of evidence that _might_ point to a database
issue. Say, the Russian site had a slightly better packet loss. And they have
a different server over there, or something.

Then you make it political. And start ranting about how I'm a "database
heretic" that should be fired for daring to question the database theory.

------
lumberjack
With other westerners or with Chinese people? I think that is a crucial detail
that was left out.

Anyway, some people are building a future that others do not want to live in,
so it is no wonder that some ideas are going to be received harshly.
Nonetheless I understand that we cannot predict the future, so maybe, what
people think will happen, won't. But people are fearful of a possible Pandora
Box event.

I personally do not like those who are so excited, by the business or
technology they are building, that they never stop and think about the
consequences. I also do not like those who think, "my intentions for the use
of this technology are wholesome, therefore I am not responsible for any harm
that can be caused by others using this technology maliciously".

New ideas should be explored, but with caution.

~~~
chaostheory
imo Sam could have been almost anywhere outside of San Francisco (and
Berkeley), even still within the SF Bay Area metro, and still have had the
same conversation he had in Beijing. Places like SF and Alabama tend to be in
the extreme left or right instead of the center. It's hard talking to or even
around zealots

~~~
dizzant
Your comment exemplifies what the OP is criticizing. By writing off the people
in SF and Alabama as "zealots," you've closed the door to reasoned debate and
to educating them on their miscues. I don't disagree that people occasionally
take unjustifiable stances, but that doesn't make them unreasonable people.
You have to understand their reasons and convince them of yours.

As someone who has lived in Alabama, I assure you that long term economic
uncertainty, lack of good public education, entrenched mistrust of the
government, and familial loyalty signaling do more to shape opinions than a
logically sound argument and upstanding ethical principles.

~~~
chaostheory
> Your comment exemplifies what the OP is criticizing.

I'm not sure how writing about my opinion is the same as shutting down
discourse

> By writing off the people in SF and Alabama as "zealots," you've closed the
> door to reasoned debate and to educating them on their miscues.

I have lived in both the South and SF for years and I'm posting based on my
experience. Yes there are always exceptions. At the same time, I don't find it
useful to ignore the culture or trends at large. Different places have
specific, unique cultures.

> people occasionally take unjustifiable stances, but that doesn't make them
> unreasonable people.

I could be wrong, but the point of Sam's post is that more people in places
like SF and Alabama don't just occasionaly take strong stances. It happens a
lot more often and these stances are so entrenched that they're more akin to
religious beliefs, where it's just hard to even entertain alternative view
points without offending people. It shuts down discourse and thought.

In terms of having conversations, I'm not on a mission to change the status
quo; I just want more freedom to think & speak especially when I'm trying to
relax. Logically for me, it makes little sense to be in an environment where
everyone will suffer due to the topic. I'm not saying that it's wrong or bad
to 'educate people on their miscues'. I'm just saying that it's not for me.

------
iceIX
Tim Ferriss also mentioned this issue in his recent AMA [1] when discussing
why he recently relocated to Austin. He describes it as "a peculiar form of
McCarthyism masquerading as liberal open-mindedness." The whole comment is
worth reading.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7erct8/i_am_tim_ferri...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7erct8/i_am_tim_ferriss_host_of_the_tim_ferriss_show_and/dq6va5f/)

------
el_nahual
A lot of comments make the argument that any extreme political correctness is
exclusive to the bay area, not the US as a whole, or that Sam's experience is
true in an "expat bubble" in China.

To which I submit as evidence "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the
World", an art exhibition currently on display at the Guggenheim in New York
City.

This retrospective of Chinese art had 3(!) works of art removed (ie, censored)
from the exhibition because the content was perceived as morally reprehensible
by some groups of new york animal rights activists.

Proof that at least along some avenues of discourse (what is allowed in art?
when is animal suffering allowed? when is representation of a disturbing act
that occurred in the past allowed?) the NYC progressive contingent is more
conservative than the Chinese.

Note: This does not mean that China is a paradise of free speech. There are
other avenues of discourse (ex political discourse) where this is not the
case.

Note 2: They sell hot dogs outside the Guggenheim.

[0]:
[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/26/guggenh...](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/26/guggenheim-
museum-artworks-animals-threats-violence)

------
jordanpg
> 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.

What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the
gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate
of hate and bigotry?

~~~
kelukelugames
I'm okay with comedians writing bad jokes or telling them during open mic. Our
society is somewhat tolerant of that. Al Franken did get elected after his
rape joke was published. Though in hindsight that is an awful example.

But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even
pretending to be joking. They have killed.

So I think Sam lacks empathy. Try this thought exercise. Replace the word
"gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does
that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person? How well do you
think that will go over in SF, HN, or America?

~~~
kansface
| So I think Sam lacks empathy... But the unreasonable people saying "gay
people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed.

Sam is both gay and jewish...

| Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you
belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that
person?

I don't think "white people are evil" is a controversial statement is SF.

~~~
kelukelugames
Harvey Weinstein is Jewish. Kevin Spacey is gay. Being X doesn't mean you
automatically have empathy for Y. Or even X.

As for the second part, valley employees have gotten in trouble for
criticizing "white". Wasn't there an outrage over Github?

------
davidw
YC could open up an office in Padova, where Galileo spent the 'happiest years
of his life'. Be happy to help, although we're pretty content here in Bend
these days.

Regarding Beijing: I think he may have been in something of an 'expat bubble'.
Speaking with other entrepreneurs far from home, it's easy to focus on that.
Try criticizing the political leadership, though.

------
BadassFractal
Thank you Sam for speaking out about this.

Every few months living in the Bay reminds me of the importance of Paul
Graham's
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) .

The constant pursuit of ideological purity in the Bay, the desire for
diversity of skin tones and orientations, but not of ideas, taking offense as
a viable way of establishing social hierarchies. It's all very tiring.

~~~
andrenotgiant
> The constant pursuit of ideological purity in the Bay, the desire for
> diversity of skin tones and orientations, but not of ideas, taking offense
> as a viable way of establishing social hierarchies. It's all very tiring.

Well said, so well said that I'd like to tweet it and share it, but I won't,
because of the exact problem it describes.

~~~
ironjunkie
yep. It is getting that bad. I would love to tweet this and debate this with
people but I know that if I do so there is a high chance it might impact my
career and my overall life here in the bay.

Sometimes I'm wondering how many people like me just pretend to blend in and
go with the mainstream political correctness just because we don't have the
guts//strength to fight this fight right now. My guess? a LOT from what I can
see in my circle of friends over here.

------
sebleon
As someone with many “heretic ideas”, I disagree with this article - people
that execute on crazy ideas are thick-skinned. Hard to believe that smart
people would actually leave SF because of PC culture (although it is
annoying). Even from Altman’s examples, Newton stayed in England and did what
he wanted, despite the social norms.

It was also odd to see Altman use China as the bastion of freedom, a place
with widespread internet censorship and where things like democracy are
considered heretic.

~~~
Cyberdog
I hardly see him presenting China as a bastion of freedom. But I do understand
how one could feel safer voicing their mind _on a certain subset of topics_
among a crowd of Beijingren versus a crowd of San Franciscans.

~~~
sebleon
Ah that’s fair, different cultures will have different heresies.

------
DenisM
For those not in the know: "E pur si muove" means "And yet it moves", a phrase
supposedly uttered under his breath by Galileo after he was coerced into
admitting that the Earth does not move around the Sun.

------
chasing
"So what of China's billion-plus citizens who are not members of the free-
speech elite? Although an average citizen could privately express sentiments
similar to those published by Li Rui, if an average person had written and
privately published what Li Rui wrote, or presented such sentiments in a
speech to a large political gathering as he did, there is little doubt that
Chinese authorities would prosecute them for subversion."

"In January 2003 the website of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of
China's Communist Party, reported that a court in Hefei, Anhui province
sentenced two men, identified only by the surnames He and Yu, to prison terms
of nine and seven years respectively for "unlawful operation of a business."
Their crime was publishing love poems without government authorization."

"Prior restraints are synonymous with censorship, and represent one of the
most onerous infringements on freedom of expression. The term "prior
restraint" refers to any system in which the government may deny a person the
use of a forum for expression in advance of the actual expression. Chinese
authorities employ several different types of prior restraints over the
citizens of China in order to ensure that the Communist Party is able to
silence critics and maintain direct editorial control over political
information and news reporting..."

"The Communist Party's Central Propaganda Department sends out regular
bulletins to editors informing them which topics are forbidden."

Etc.

[https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-
privil...](https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-
not-a-right)

------
nine_k
One of the things often overlooked is how our (American) culture is very much
driven by religion. Note that the religion is _not_ necessarily some version
of Christianity. The overwhelming religious movement rarely named could be
called "progressivism".

A religion, as opposed to other forms, usually has postulates you may not
doubt, words you may not say, etc. That is, it constraints rational approaches
in the area of what's sacred for that religion.

Well, I don't mind religious people. People are free to believe and practice
what they believe — as long as they do it without pressing other people into
compliance.

And this is exactly what happens. Faithful people who see something from the
list of "progressive" sacred cows being discussed, especially at some critical
/ unorthodox angle (as opposed to praised in a canonical form), become
furious: it's a sacrilege!

Now Mr. Altman notices that SF tech circles have turned into something of a
Mecca (or Constantinople) of "progressivism", and raising a voice against the
predominant religious views becomes unwelcome and downright dangerous. Well,
yes. Sorry about that. Maybe you've been noticing signs of it for a few
decades already.

The irony is, of course, is that "progressivism" often writes "reason" or
"science" on its banners. I suspect the more ardent adepts will notice the
discrepancy and suggest to remove them soon.

~~~
ravar
I would add to this by positing this is not just American culture. I think all
people are religious by nature, even the most rational scientist has their
inexplicable religious rituals.

My thought on this is that the world is simply too complicated to operate in,
and everyone is looking for a system that has the answers. It is a form of
compression. You don't have to handle the flow of complexity because someone
else tells you the correct move.

Catholicism did this, it said that it had all the answers. Science wants to
provide all the answers, and tries to advertise itself as such. However, as
the post modernists identified science only gives you the facts, but there are
infinite ways to interpret the facts. You need a value structure, a religion
maybe, to interpret the facts. I think this is the religion that you have
identified.

~~~
nine_k
I do agree with the general point: people need answers, so they usually keep
some postulates as true without further discussion, and build reasoning on top
of them. This makes a lot of pragmatic sense.

Science, though, does notice its own epistemic instability, so to say. It
understands its limits (reproducible phenomena on which statistic methods
work), and ultimately agrees that the very base of it, the hypothesis of
"objective reality", is but a hypothesis, and could be wrong (e.g. we live in
a simulation that can be controlled in interesting ways), and can't be proven
subjectively (that is, a correctly formulated solipsism is impenetrable).

So, no, science is not tying to give all the answers. It can provide a lot of
practically useful answers, though, that are also supposed not to contradict
each other. That's the best we can extract from it.

~~~
ravar
Good catch, I did say it wants to provide all the answers, but I guess that
wasn't exactly the idea I was trying to get at. I think the more fleshed out
idea is that some people want science to provide all the answers. These
people, like Sam Harris, advertise science as capable of providing the
answers, but Sam Harris is not exactly a practicing scientist, although he
does have a PhD.

It seems we are mostly in agreement. What I am trying to get is many people do
look towards "science" and "reason" as sources of salvation. Regardless of
whether or not science advertises itself that way.

------
lukeschlather
Nobody can possibly be as free to speak their mind as a wealthy American
investor in a developing country. I suspect the lack of freedom the author is
feeling is the fact that in San Francisco his disapproval doesn't represent an
existential threat for the people around him.

~~~
psyc
I don’t see how this follows at all. Can’t a rich person value their
reputation and good name?

~~~
lukeschlather
Of course, but people are less likely to speak their minds, so it's harder for
the author to know what people actually think of him in China.

------
eanzenberg
I've noticed similar, that a lot of people here in SF live in a fairly-well-
intentioned bubble and are super vocal sometimes to the point of socially
castrating when you don't agree with them.

------
tdeck
I get that this is incidental to the point, but since he leads with China as
an example, I wonder if it's possible that the topics he thinks will be
controversial are simply ones that people are less passionate about in China.
Every culture has its own "hot-button" topics.

Try pointing out that Taiwan is a separate country sometime and you'd be
absolutely shocked at the reaction you get from some people, even though they
have different passports and a separate government. A Chinese engineer at
Google once threatened to resign and started a a major firestorm over a
dessert called "Free Tibet Goji Chocolate Creme Pie":

[https://business.linkedin.com/talent-
solutions/blog/2015/04/...](https://business.linkedin.com/talent-
solutions/blog/2015/04/the-biggest-firestorm-in-googles-history-the-name-of-a-
pie)

------
Lxr
Related:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

------
staunch
This problem will resolve itself because there are brave people willing to
weather the controversy caused by thinking in public.

Long unedited podcasts are turning out to be the best platform, with people
like Sam Harris, Dan Carlin, and even Joe Rogan becoming the most important
public intellectuals alive today. All three have financial and editorial
independence. They reach millions of people on a weekly basis. Carlin is in
Oregon, from Los Angeles, where Rogan and Harris are.

Sam Altman could obviously run a podcast where he discussed his controversial
ideas. Many like minded people would rally around him. Some idiots would call
him a monster. It would be great.

If you have FU money and you're complaining about PC culture, you're being
unnecessarily cowardly. Start a podcast and help change things.

~~~
ironjunkie
still. Even if you are wealthy, Fighting this is very taxing for your life.
you are constantly under attack by every other person that wants to feel like
they are bringing progress to society by agreeing to the latest PC trend from
SF.

------
baxtr
As someone who doesn't live in the States, I can't follow the article. It's
strangely abstract. What are the controversial ideas he is discussing in China
but not in the States? Did I miss those examples in the text? I think that
would help a lot to understand problem.

------
robertwalsh0
As a minority, this ‘let all the ideas run free in the marketplace of ideas’
sounds fun until the ideas are about your inferiority and suggested
extermination.

------
rsp1984
It looks like there are very different opinions about whether Silicon Valley
culture is more or less tolerant than other places.

However I think those differences can be resolved by viewing tolerance of
_background_ and tolerance of _opinion_ on two different axes. In my mind SV
scores very high on tolerance of background but low on tolerance of opinion
(as in "we don't care how you look like, as long as you agree with our
opinions"), whereas NY scores high on both, and places like Japan are the
reverse (scoring low on tolerance of background but high on tolerance of
opinion -- hope I haven't offended any Japanese readers but that was my
impression when I lived there for a short while).

------
du_bing
Thanks for writing this, as a Chinese Developer, I can get many great and
unique opinions on my own country on Hacker News which I would never get on
the Internet in China.

I have been watching Sam Altman's sayings for a long time, I believe his
judgment is at least reasonable for some reason we cannot see from the
article.

Actually as an ordinary Chinese citizen and IT worker, I have always seen SF
as the best place in the world to work and create something. However, in
recent years, the atmosphere has subtly changed, between Silicon Valley and
Beijing, between China and USA.

Such different ideas are always good for understanding the world better.

------
Dove
We have something to learn from the church here.

For long decades, the Protestants and Catholics did bloody battle for
dominance of Europe. It seems silly to those now who think religion is a
trivial lifestyle choice, but the lesson is to be learned by viewing this from
their perspective. To them, each saw the other as putting the immortal souls
of the masses in grave danger. The stakes could not possibly be higher, which
is why the solution was so hard to see.

Freedom of religion is a very, very counterintuitive idea if you think
religion is deadly important.

The churches agreed to live together in peace, not because they concluded
their cause was unimportant, but because they could see resolving their
disputes with blows was error-prone and cruel. The best way forward, the best
chance truth had, the most just and practical way to live, is to commit to
resolving these conflicts with _words_ _only_.

The idea was so successful that today we would not think even of dragging
someone out of a cult against their will. Even if a religious idea is
obviously bad, we are committed to opposing it with _words_ _only_ because the
lesson of history is that the alternative is so much worse.

It's a lesson we need to learn in politics.

We are not at the point where opposing political views generate open warfare,
but I wonder more and more if we might be heading in that direction. But we do
oppose each other in ways we wouldn't tolerate in a religious context: we
ostracize and chase away people with unpopular views from various societies,
either virtual or physical. We organize campaigns of legal or personal
harassment. We organize economic pressure to attack the livelihoods of
individuals whose views we find offensive.

All of these tactics run the same moral risk that physical warfare does: if
you turn out to be wrong, you have done a grave injustice. And _someone_ is
wrong. You can't be sure it isn't you. Therefore, to prevent society being an
awful place to pursue your conscience, none of us should do these things.

Worse, a campaign against an idea that consist of anything other than
criticizing the idea runs the risk of being wrong. Strenuous debate is the
arena in which truth has the best chance, so it is where we should all agree
to fight.

We need to learn the lesson the church learned centuries ago. We need to
commit to fighting our political battles with _words_ _only_ , not because
they are so unimportant that we can tolerate error, but because they are too
important to let the strong and popular hold sway.

------
Aaron1011
> I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing
> than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China,
> after all—just more comfortable than at home.

> Restricting speech leads to restricting ideas and therefore restricted
> innovation—the most successful societies have generally been the most open
> ones

There's quite a difference between 'I feel uncomfortable discussing topic X in
location Y' and 'location Y is restricting speech'. The only concrete example
in the article of the former is a 'toxic reaction' to work in 'intelligence
augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension'.

What exactly does a 'toxic reaction' mean? Is there a meaningful distinction
between it and 'strenuous debate about ideas'?

Based on the examples given, this article seems to hold 'mainstream' and
'heterodox' ideas to different standards. Criticism of mainstream ideas is
(rightly) described as 'necessary to get the really good ideas', 'what drives
the world forward', etc. Criticism of heterodox ideas, on the other hand, is a
'restriction of speech' and a 'toxic reaction'.

I wish that Altman had provided more a single example (the reaction to
'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension')
instead of vague references to 'controversial ideas', 'casting the people
behind the ideas as heretics', and 'heresy.

------
jggonz
"I would advice Mr. Sam Altman to not write such an insulting article. He
should take it down immediately. Many of us reading it live in San Francisco."

------
kneath
The most powerful man on earth, Pope Paul V demanded Galileo silence his
thoughts on heliocentrism. He was then submitted to the Roman Inquisition,
found guilty, and imprisoned for the rest of his life. Somehow this is seen as
comparable in Sam's mind to a reasonable debate about ethics (“If people live
a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on
this must be really unethical”).

Quite frankly, if you can't find the courage to have a reasonable debate about
your ideas, you shouldn't be the one working on those ideas. If your ideas run
contrary to public thoughts around ethics, perhaps you should move to a
culture where your ethics more closely mirror theirs. Or more radically —
listen to why people disagree!

This whole post comes off as someone who's realizing their ethics are
mismatched with the culture they're living in, and instead of questioning
themselves, demand that the rest of the culture shift to their views. In other
words: let me be this asshole, because I deserve it!

~~~
dgudkov
>if you can't find the courage to have a reasonable debate about your ideas..

The problem is that because of growing social polarization reasonable debates
are becoming increasingly rare. Hoping to have a reasonable debate with people
who are not looking to have a reasonable debate is silly and has nothing to do
with courage.

------
grey-area
This is dangerously wrong.

 _Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I
realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing
than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China,
after all—just more comfortable than at home._

There are many more unsayable things in Beijing than San Francisco, and the
penalties for saying them are much harsher (though of course not for Sam, as a
very wealthy foreigner most rules simply don't apply). People are _regularly_
beaten, harassed and murdered for reporting the truth about the government in
China. Journalism is a very dangerous profession there in ways it is not in
the US.

[http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/14/asia/chinese-beat-
korean-j...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/14/asia/chinese-beat-korean-
journalist-intl/index.html) [https://cpj.org/2016/04/chinese-journalist-
sentenced-to-near...](https://cpj.org/2016/04/chinese-journalist-sentenced-to-
nearly-5-years-for.php)

In contrast, the dangers Sam runs from being open are that people will be mean
to him on the internet.

 _I am less worried that letting some people on the internet say things like
“gay people are evil” is going to convince reasonable people that such a
statement is true_

This is a really odd statement of a non-problem which dismisses real world
life-threatening problems a lot of marginalised people live with. First,
reasonable people are not the problem, violent, irrational people who are
influenced by bad ideas are. Second, this is not an academic debate over
people with naughty ideas, real lives are ruined by the normalisation of
bigotry and hatred (in ways that Sam in his privileged bubble has never and
will never experience, and apparently can't even imagine). People are
murdered, spat on and denigrated even at their funerals when hate like 'gay
people are evil' is allowed to spread. Sometimes, to remain human, you have to
choose a side.

 _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._

Why would those two things ever be related? Why can't we let people say novel
things about physics, and call them out when they (for example) harass gay
people, sexually assault people who work for them, or do other bad things. Why
would we possibly want to excuse bad behaviour because someone comes up with
novel physics ideas?

What sort of confusion of ideas could lead to linking these two topics?

~~~
lr4444lr
What if it were hypothesized on the basis of some controversial observations
say in optics, not _proven_ mind you, but supposed based on related work, that
we might be able to hit melanin molecules with certain types of radiation to
allow people to change their skin color to those indistinguishable from
another racial group? Would physicists be allowed to discuss and publish
proposals for this? I'm not even talking IRB issues of human experimentation,
just pursuing the work in vitro.

~~~
grey-area
You can buy cream for that already.

To address what I hope is your point (not really about skin colour, I assume
that was simply an example of a no-go zone for your imagined liberal
interlocutor), there are not many areas of research out of bounds because of
social mores - there are always some at any given point in time in any given
society (for example cloning or using fetal tissue in the US), and there are
valid discussions to be had about whether research is ethical or not (which
shifts over time).

Those hard ethical issues on the edge of science and what it means to be human
are unrelated however to: novel physics ideas, almost all startup ideas, ideas
for a new currency like bitcoin, spacex etc. Of course to have good ideas you
need to preserve some innocence, ignore all the naysayers (of which the
internet has plenty, a never-ending horde we all participate in at times), you
may need to stand apart from your society (as in the case of bitcoin) or
reject its tenets but that is entirely unrelated to tolerance for intolerance,
to tolerance for hatred, to a happy ignorance of ethics or moral boundaries.

The writer mixes up simple cynicism and societal pressure which he experiences
(which are as old as the world and easy to ignore), and real hatred leading to
violence and seems to think they are somehow equivalent. Those are different
categories of objection, different qualities of harm. Paul Graham or Sam
feeling bad because people are dismissive, petty and wrong about good ideas he
has, is simply incomparable to the real harm caused by the normalisation of
the ideas in this essay (e.g. a given class of people are evil and subhuman -
be that gays, jews, rich white men or something else). By giving those ideas
credence, he's lending a hand to evil in the world.

In short, you don't need to allow hatred of [insert your hated group here] to
allow good science.

------
shifter
Well said! Sam posted a great defense of what I view as the second leg of
"freedom of speech". There's the legal sense of the term – which is limited to
government suppression of speech – and then there's the idea of what private
society allows of its own volition.

------
Aron
> "If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment"

This one has been around FOREVER but he was surprised to hear it this year?
doubtful. I think Sam actually picked safe examples for his contrarian essay.
e.g Notably absent Damore.

------
jmtame
While I'm not trying to pick apart small pieces of the essay, I agree with
some of the high-level points. Culturally in SV, we are increasingly afraid of
discussing anything that is controversial. Ad hominems are increasingly
popular for any dissenting opinion or difference of view.

It wasn't always like this, and it has definitely gotten worse IMO. Based on
conversations I've had with some friends, they also agree. We've all been
living in the bay area for over 6 years and we're now entertaining the idea of
moving away. I also know some smart people who have left naming this as one of
the reasons.

------
tsjackson
I'm naturally sympathetic to the sentiment, but this post fails to
acknowledge, much less address, the major societal changes that have
precipitated our current situation. Censorship is a reaction to our society's
increasing inability to combat misinformation. Over the last 20 years, a huge,
extremely influential right wing media establishment has sprung up. It has
clearly demonstrated its ability to convince millions of people of things that
are factually untrue, with less logic than repetition. (Ask Barack Obama, the
Kenyan Muslim, about the utility of reasoning). I am worried about someone who
makes an argument that gay people are evil, because it probably now means that
a group of commentators have adopted that simple statement as a talking point.
Furthermore, they've tacked on preposterous arguments, logical fallacies, and
agreed to engage in Ad Hominem warfare against anyone who argues differently.
It's been an extremely effective formula for persuading a huge portion, if not
most of our society, into believing falsehoods.

Unfortunately, the John Stuart Mill marketplace of ideas is failing to
distribute value as obviously as our economic marketplaces. The openness of
communication made possible via technology has turned us all into Sophists.
Efforts to confront and address this reality is peripheral at best. As long as
this is true, censorship will be an appealing option to keep bad ideas from
spreading. Is censorship worth the cost? I don't know, but I'd lean toward
saying yes, while fully acknowledging that the cost is huge.

~~~
jerf
You're not refuting his point... you're demonstrating it.

~~~
tsjackson
The main thrust of the argument seems to be that we should do our best to stop
censorship. I'm arguing that we probably shouldn't. Our society is not really
equipped to handle the free exchange of ideas at this point.

~~~
staunch
Because some large percentage of people are filled with cynicism and
pessimism?

Every objective measure of society is better today than at any time in the
past, and yet we have people calling for curtailing a core American value due
to a supposed social emergency. These demoralized people need a hard reality
check because there's nothing fact-based about the way they think or behave.

There are orders of magnitude more educated people in the world today than
ever before. Development of technology is rapidly accelerating. The idea that
we can't solve our problems without sacrificing our souls is just pathetic and
historically un-American.

~~~
tsjackson
Techno-optimist drivel is at least as unsavory as the overly sensitive, anti-
technological kneejerk reactions that this article is lamenting. It's absurd
to write off real problems with technology because tech does good things as
well.

I am having trouble following your jump from shutting down trolls to
sacrificing our souls. If you think the loudest person should get a platform,
I encourage you to spend some more time in (non-HN) comment sections.

~~~
staunch
Techno-optimists created the modern world...

You say you want to shutdown "trolls" but you surely also want to modify the
definition of troll on an on-going basis.

The pessimists think they can't win on ideas alone so they resort to using
force against the "trolls" to ensure victory. Harassing, deplatforming,
doxing, getting them fired, boycotting, etc.

The optimists (see: MLK Jr.) know humans are pretty great and, given
sufficient time and information, the good ideas will win eventually.

If you actually care about your society you should be engaging "trolls" and
trying to understand them. And you should be trying to convince them they're
wrong, if you can. And if you can't, you should look to others that can.

------
sampl
> You can’t tell which seemingly wacky ideas are going to turn out to be right

A good philosophy for personal projects and starting companies too, IMO. Seems
to be a pattern among indie hacker types.

------
decentralised
This is the best article I've ever read from Sam Altman.

Seen from abroad, SV and the US in general is becoming less appealing every
day and it's not really Trump's fault.

------
dgreensp
If your startup idea is actually offensive to people, maybe take a step back
and think about that, or just do it anyway, who cares? Since when are
entrepreneurs afraid of "speaking heresies" or "toxic reactions"... from whom?
Investors? Friends at dinner parties? Are the reactions of San Franciscans
really so unique? Somehow blaming a city for your idea's reception sounds
suspect. Also, playing the victim. Getting called out on political
incorrectness is not akin to being bludgeoned with a "club."

If you tend towards "constantly thinking about how everything you say might be
misinterpreted," congratulations, you're neurotic, like me. It's just
something you have to overcome enough to be comfortable expressing your own
unique opinions. When you do this, you may find your controversial opinions
are merely out of touch. Like you have an IQ of 180 and you've been reading
scientific papers and you can prove there are only two genders... and now if
you can't express this view over a beer in SOMA without getting some looks,
you can't invent the self-driving car or something...?

------
Animats
Things you can't say in San Francisco:

\- Gays are about 3% of the US population. Higher in a few big cities, lower
in rural areas. Transgenders, maybe 0.4%.

\- About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have
legitimate complaints.

\- Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US white IQ: 100. Average US black IQ:
85.

\- "Medical marijuana" is a joke.

~~~
AlexandrB
> \- Gays are about 3% of the US population. Higher in a few big cities, lower
> in rural areas. Transgenders, maybe 0.4%.

I don't get it. Assuming this demographic fact is correct, what's your point?
That they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as the other 96.6%?

> \- About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have
> legitimate complaints.

About 63 million Americans voted for Trump. This is not half the US
population. Whether half the US population supports Trump or not is pure
speculation.

> \- Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US white IQ: 100. Average US black IQ:
> 85.

Even granted that this is true. Do you have any evidence that this is nature
not nurture?

> "Medical marijuana" is a joke.

Possible. But is it any worse than the current opioid epidemic? And why is
tobacco legal anyway? Seems like I should be able to choose my poison.

~~~
sbierwagen
>About 63 million Americans voted for Trump. This is not half the US
population. Whether half the US population supports Trump or not is pure
speculation.

135.4 million people voted in the presidential election, 46% of them for
Trump.

135.4 million isn't everyone in the US, but discussing if children should be
allowed to vote is an entirely different argument.

------
davebryand
Sam, your point is incredibly valid, and you'll be able to lead the charge if
you reframe some of your concepts and let go of paragraphs like this.

"To get the really good ideas, we need to tolerate really bad and wacky ideas
too. In addition to the work Newton is best known for, he also studied alchemy
(the British authorities banned work on this because they feared the
devaluation of gold) and considered himself to be someone specially chosen by
the almighty for the task of decoding Biblical scripture."

Like I tell my son, "anytime your minds says something is 'weird or wacky',
what it is really telling you is that you should seek understanding'.

[Updated] To be clear, what I mean is that you confessed your limits of
acceptable thought by declaring alchemy and decoding of the Bible as being bad
and wacky. If a genius like Newton was willing to believe these were worthy of
his attention, and the British authorities were worried enough to ban it,
maybe it's time to challenge the scripting you have that won't let YOU go
there.

------
danieltillett
_In fact, the only ideas I’m afraid of letting people say are the ones that I
think may be true and that I don’t like._

I think this is the most interesting section in the whole essay. Is Sam really
suggesting that he wants to supress the truth because he doesn't like what the
truth is telling us. Here is a totally novel idea - how about changing your
mind when the evidence changes.

------
Jaruzel
He describes the Echo Chamber in full effect. You can't have good debate if
everyone is on the same side of the argument. War may be bad, but without it,
we'd never have the advancements in quality of life we now enjoy.

Once the whole planet becomes a single-hive-minded social-media entity,
innovation will stagnate, and the human race will slowly die off.

------
freech
It's impossible to only question those ideas you personally really need to
question, while ignoring other ideas you hear that seem wrong. You either
develop a habit of questioning or not. Habits need to be simple, you can't
have a habit of showering every day, except when the date is a prime number.

------
gadders
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven
yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness
stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of
states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who
have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed
with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

CS Lewis

------
collinvandyck76
Very much related to this, my brother is an assistant professor at LaFayette
College and has co-founded a series of talks called "The Mill Series" on
promoting viewpoint diversity.

[https://www.themillseries.org/](https://www.themillseries.org/)

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Actually I'm surprised this article hasn't been flagged yet. Many of us feel
the same, but it's unusual to discuss these things openly. Last time I saw the
discussion was triggered by Google sacking Damore - and almost all discussions
were flagged as soon as SF woke up.

------
Nomentatus
Somewhat similarly, in Hutterite colonies only men voted (dunno about today.)
So what they said was very strictly watched and proscribed since their
opinions mattered. Males rarely dared to criticize anything in the colony. In
contrast females could criticize whatever they cared too with few
consequences. They didn't vote so their opinions weren't perceived as
threatening order very much.

I think de Tocqueville made a similar report about America a very long time
ago, that Americans had to self-censor, French peasants didn't - they didn't
vote so the powers that be cared little about their opinions.

------
grandalf
It's great to see Sam calling attention to this problem.

I'd argue that it's not really about ideas as much as it is about the public
being much more accepting of authoritarianism.

The broader values of free speech and free expression come not from an
aesthetic judgment of particular acts of speech, but from a desire to limit
the power of authoritarian governments to suppress speech/expression.

We're seeing in both parties an amnesia about the downside of
authoritarianism, and this filters down to things like office culture,
university culture, and the perception of the trade-offs associated with
various freedoms.

------
cortesoft
I get really frustrated with this constant refrain that every idea needs to be
responded to on its merits, and you aren't allowed to EVER just dismiss an
idea.

While this sounds good in theory, in practice you have to draw the line
somewhere. Do I need to engage in a debate about whether the earth is flat or
not every time someone says it is flat? Am I not allowed to just dismiss the
idea and say 'this is not something that is up to debate'?

Not all ideas are worthy of discussion, and someties you have to tell the
people constantly proposing ideas that we have addressed before to knock it
off.

------
kristianov
If you are afraid of hearing opposing opinions, maybe you have weak arguments.

------
hutzlibu
Not sure how appropriate, but my association with the title and topic is a
song from a german metal band, which moved and influenced me a lot, when I
discovered it, while also reading in school(and outside) about it...

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4YRnjrM1Q](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4YRnjrM1Q)

And I remember being very upset, that I seemed to be the only one moved by the
topic, while the rest of the class, including the teacher, found it booring
and just learned about it, because they had to ... blasphemists!

------
geofft
I feel like this article is trying to advocate for both "ideas don't matter"
and "ideas matter a lot" without adequately distinguishing the cases. There's
definitely an attempt at distinction, but I don't get the sense that it really
works.

For instance, both "radical life extension is worth working on" and "gay
people are evil" are ideas that certain people consider _toxic_ to society -
not just ideas they disagree with, but ideas that, if they are considered and
debated and experimented with, will result in harm even if they're defeated in
the long term. (And yes, the responses to these ideas will be themselves
"toxic;" you get rid of toxins by killing them.) What distinguishes one from
the other?

The article is clearly advocating for us not just to tolerate "radical life
extension is worth working on," but to support an environment where an
advocate of that idea can draw other people to that cause without public
opposition and can publicly espouse that cause without social judgment.
Someone who believes this should be able to be viewed as a great thinker, as
someone doing worthwhile research, as someone who's not a "heretic".

But then the article turns around and says, _" I am not worried that letting
some people on the internet say things like 'gay people are evil' is going to
convince any reasonable people that such a statement is true."_ Why? Plenty of
people both on the internet and off say that _and do convince people of it_.
(I was one of the people convinced by this; if you haven't had the experience
of growing up in an environment which isn't a cult by any means but enforces
religious-cultural orthodoxy, I do strongly recommend talking to such people
about how that environment operates and propagates its beliefs if you're going
to have opinions about "heresy".) Why should we believe that nobody will be
convinced by "gay people are evil" but people will be convinced by "radical
life extension is worth working on"?

And what about other ideas like "gay people aren't evil, we love gay people,
but they're demon-possessed and conversion therapy will successfully fix them
towards heterosexuality, which has been the norm throughout all of human
society?" That idea is definitely going to get you a toxic response in SF
culture. Should it not?

If we're simply going to judge ideas by whether other people are likely to be
convinced by the ideas, and nothing else, we're not going to drive society in
a productive direction. We have to be willing to say that certain things are
good and certain things are bad. C. S. Lewis' _The Abolition of Man_ is
somewhat relevant here (and is a worthwhile read) - either we have our
standards, our things we value, or we will let ourselves be ruled by whatever
ideas seem defensible, and those ideas will start controlling how we are open
to new ideas. Of course this is not to say that we have no problem with
_discourse_ , that the way that we approach "this idea is bad actually" or
"this idea is good actually" is not broken. But that's very different from
saying that all such judgments should be banished.

(Preemptive response: I do realize that the author is gay, and I don't think
that invalidates this comment.)

------
WiseWeasel
Could this not simply be a reflection of cultural differences in the
expression of disagreement? I have no personal experience with life in China,
but a common observation others have made is that, similar to other societies
in the region, and in contrast to cultures in many European and American
countries, avoidance of shame, respect for authority and maintenance of social
harmony are of significantly higher importance to people.

------
agumonkey
It's a bit off. The context is complex. It's true that things are tense these
days. But not only SF, everywhere: USA, Europe ..

There are social tectonics at play and the stress causes people to overreact
negatively on anything that doesn't solve the current issues.

ps: augmenting intelligence is still weird to me, at least above a certain
point, I'm all about balance these days; fix me but I don't need augmented
abilities.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized?

Me: let's extend life

Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the
environment, so people working on this must be really unethical

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an
encounter like this?

~~~
jstanley
No, he's asking for _ideas_ to be criticised, and for the _people presenting
the ideas_ not to be ostracised.

You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from
there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm
than good.

~~~
youdontknowtho
I keep hearing that from people saying things like...

"I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't
we have a free exchange of ideas?"

What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these
days.

Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't
seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can
afford it. Or, if it is being presented as a public good, the owner of the
tech gets to become a new robber baron.

Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in
need and there is a system in place that generates people in need.

Downvotes away!

~~~
ak_yo
I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this:

A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a
bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of
people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?"

Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely
indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this
conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything
as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think
physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?

~~~
psyc
You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be
fired and ousted from the industry.

~~~
igor47
Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because
it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful
discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I
would have been 100% onboard

~~~
jedharris
Why is Twitter the problem if a company fires an employee.

If I can just ignore Twitter (and I do) then Twitter mobs don't directly
affect me. But if my management does things because of Twitter mobs (or
anything else like that) we have a big problem.

------
rb808
Next time he's in China maybe he should think about donating some money to a
local union and see how free the speech is there. I'm no fan of the Bay Area
but comparing to China freedom of speech is a bit weird.

~~~
dan_mctree
The SF type of free speech is just of a very different kind. In China the
wrong political ideas can cause you trouble with the government and
potentially in jail. In SF the wrong ideas or words can lead to rejection from
your social circle and loss of your career. To a lot of people the latter is
just as scary, if not scarier than facing a hostile government. A year in jail
doesn't sound as bad to some as becoming a social pariah.

And the government is at least sort of predictable, and is unlikely to make
you disappear without any warnings. Social circles and careers can flip at a
moments notice based on criteria no one is exactly sure of. A less than
favorable opinion on any racial or sexual minority group or gender? A too
favorable opinion on something sexual? Some comment regarding a woman's
appearance? Support for a certain political party? Not thinking some
individual woman/minority is amazing? Desiring the (il)legality of guns?
Desiring the (il)legality of abortion? Other opinions on healthcare?
Expressing a preference to (fe)males for some occupation? Acting on the belief
it is okay to flirt in a workplace environment? Believing 'political
correctness' is bad? Thinking human engineering is a good thing? Being
for/opposed to the trans movement? Having some religion? Not having a
religion?

You never know which one of these is capable of killing off your career/social
group. In your average environment today, you really just can't tell which of
them will set off the bomb. So you're silent on all.

~~~
novasaint
This resonates what I am thinking as well. I used to put my point of view on
things on social media and such but I kind of had to stop doing that because
of the latter reason.

------
orthoganol
You know Sam, if you stopped censoring controversial positions or posts from
hacker news I might take you seriously.

Coming from someone who is now almost automatically moved to the bottom of
threads or the ridiculous "See More" section you all implemented, who as a
result just doesn't post much anymore.

~~~
Gargoyle
I do think this is one place he could put his money where his mouth is.
Completely revamp the culture here, on this board that represents his company.

~~~
dang
IMO YC could legitimately respond to that one like Odetta did when Joan Baez
said "you taught me how to sing": "Oh baby, don't you blame me for that".

~~~
Gargoyle
That the paid moderator of this site would respond like this is unsurprising.

And yet the position of moderator is one that could do wonders for setting a
better culture.

~~~
dang
Maybe someday I can persuade you that it's a harder problem than it seems. But
my point was that the things people post on HN no more represent YC, let alone
Sam, than YouTube comments represent Larry and Sergey.

~~~
Gargoyle
I understand taking leadership to change a culture is a difficult task. But
when you have the actual means and influence to do it and choose not to do so,
you do hold some responsibility for the results.

HN _does_ in fact reflect on YC and Sam, whether you want it to or not. It's
their site. And in a different way than Youtube is Larry and Sergey's site
(something I at least hope you understand), though even they don't escape
responsibility for what shows up there.

------
cocktailpeanuts
Ever notice how all mad scientists live in some secluded island or in the
arctics?

Mad scientists are born not entirely because they're mad, but because the
world doesn't appreciate their intention and brand them as villains.

Once you're branded as a villain, you have no other way to go but than deeper
into villainism.

------
LukaAl
The argument is interesting but flawed. He points to a problem he sees, an
increasingly high focus on being politically correct. And I agree it is a
problem.

But he doesn't ask himself why. He doesn't try to understand why PC is so
important right now, to the point to risk missing out on important and
revolutionary ideas. And that made me think: where the best idea come from?
Not from being free to be jerks but from questioning the status quo in
constructive ways.

Why there's so much focus on Political Correctness right now? One possible
answer is because the status quo has provided a windfall for White Educated
Middle-Class Males with good connections at the expense of people further away
from this description. Example? Are you a woman? You have to cope with
molestation from entitled men. etc etc...

I'm crazy thinking that if we solve these problems we could then start again
being open to crazy shit ideas, criticize each other ideas and keep things
moving.

Or yes, we could be expats in China, where for now this problem hasn't emerged
yet. But it sounds to me like just swiping the dirt under the rug. Is it
innovative? Just asking...

------
gammarator
I can't get past the hubris of the title. Sam, you're not Galileo; nobody's
putting you to death, just criticizing you. And whatever the unpopular "truth"
you want to express is, if it's true (like "E Pur Si Muove") it should survive
that criticism.

------
shafyy
Funny, I experience exactly the opposite moving to SF from Zurich
(Switzerland). I could write the same blog post but replace SF with Zurich and
it would work for my experience.

I would like to see data on this. This seems like a very anectodal post (and I
think the controversial comments underline it).

~~~
GuiA
This is an extremely anecdotal post, and if it had been written by anyone but
the CEO of YCombinator it'd have been either ignored, or derided.

------
IamNotAtWork
> To get the really good ideas, we need to tolerate really bad and wacky ideas
> too.

part of the problem is demand for applications for theoretical research done
at universities. You can't just do research on wacky ideas because the money
you need to do the research have deliverables attached.

------
cryptoz
> [1] I am not worried that letting some people on the internet say things
> like “gay people are evil” is going to convince any reasonable people that
> such a statement is true.

Wait, but why not? Isn't this the crux issue of our time? The Russians and the
RNC have spouted fake propaganda so loudly that ~40% of the US believe
falsehoods already. And the main reason they believe things that aren't true
is because they are said 1000x on the internet every day.

I'm not saying we should restrict free speech or anything like that. No way.
But how can you ignore the problems of the world? Many people are not
'reasonable' and they _do_ believe false things. That the do so matters,
because our collective society is interconnected.

It doesn't matter if no "reasonable people" believe a false or bad statement
is true. It matters that they believe it because they have and affect on
everything. We all do.

Now we have President Trump because so many educated people thought that "no
reasonable person" would vote for him. But here we are.

~~~
ianai
I think the lies on the internet thing will have to defeat itself. I remember
being led astray by internet “wisdom” back in the first dot com bubble. Then I
went and tried to apply that knowledge IRL. I don’t remember any single
particular example, but I remember feeling downright embarrassed for believing
something off the internet. I then learned to always take anything from the
internet with hefty doses of salt rocks.

~~~
cryptoz
Of course - we are all responsible for ourselves. The problem is that critical
thinking is not taught in schools, and children grow up without it by the
millions. A problem doesn't "defeat itself" and people who have trouble
thinking critically cause problems for those who can do it naturally. Saying
that there is nothing to worry about from having tens of millions of people
believe lies, or saying "that problem will not receive a solution from ME or
ANYONE I know!" (basically, "will have to defeat itself") is going backwards.

The world, the whole world, has a problem with fake information on the
internet right now. The answer is not "oh well, too bad" and the answer is not
"I'm not worried".

~~~
ianai
The onus is on you to propose a solution the “average person” may implement.

------
GuiA
Still trying to wrap my head around what he's trying to get at exactly
(interesting that he never actually says what people in China accepted more
than in the Bay Area - my bet is that it's not something about human rights in
China) - but so far the only 2 things I'm getting are:

1) It somehow should be acceptable, in a dream society, to say that gay people
are evil, but not to question the ethics of scientism.

2) A white dude who doesn't speak Chinese somehow finds China to be a better
place for startups and freedom of speech, because there is some backlash
against the technolibertarianism he peddles in his home city. Never mind that
political activists routinely get executed in China and all that.

Sam seems like he has gone far into the deep end. Not sure if this what
happens to your brain when you are super rich and constantly surrounded with
people as rich as you, but I am struggling to make sense of it any other way.

If this had been posted by anyone else than the CEO of YCombinator, it'd have
been dismissed like the drivel that it is.

------
bungie4
Personal opinion from first hand observance: Tolerance died approximately 3
years ago.

------
simonbyrne
Of course he has to be careful what he says in the Bay Area: there he's a
widely known and respected figure with a powerful public presence. Anyone,
anywhere in such a position would be in the same boat.

------
zitterbewegung
Morality is always relative to culture. Sometimes cultures change though and
it’s really hard to make them move back. Given enough resources you can find
the morality that you want in any culture .

------
dreamdu5t
Maybe in China Sam had less opportunity talking with people outside his
bubble. If the purpose of the visit was to meet and see entrepreneurs then of
course he’ll not run into people opposing these ideas. Especially when he
doesn’t speak the native languages. Here in the Bay Area most people outside
of tech are familiar with it and constantly interacting with “the techies” so
it’s harder to exist undisturbed in your bubble.

------
kisstheblade
" nearly all ideas that turn out to be great breakthroughs start out sounding
like terrible ideas"

Citation needed...

------
bambax
Disappointing salad of ideas.

Apparently I should be allowed to say that gay people are evil, but not that
radical life extension is a really really bad and yes, in my opinion, truly
evil and selfish idea.

Should I be allowed to profess that humanity would be happier and less taxing
on the planet if there were less of us? And should I be able to research
methods to sterilize most people, and seek funding to experiment, without ever
discussing the moral and practical consequences? What about radical life
_reduction_ (for others, of course)?

The consequences of radical life extension should be discussed _prior_ to
implementation; I can't see what's so frustrating about that.

~~~
mundo
The essay was not so much against "life extension is bad" as against "people
who think life extension is good are bad."

~~~
bambax
Fair point, but some ideas reflect on who expresses them. If you think gay
people are evil, it says something about you (usually, not good). I think the
same is true about life extension.

~~~
mundo
See, that sounds innocuous enough. Yet, this essay strikes a chord with me as
delineating a real and serious problem.

Best way I can explain why is an anecdote. The other day, someone asked if
anyone could recommend a book on JS, and someone else suggested "Javascript:
the good parts" by Douglas Crockford. The following exchange occurred:

A: Oh, not Crockford, he's a sexist.

B: Really? I hadn't heard, what'd he do?

A: Ah, I forget.

Turns out, the accusations against Crockford were (as far as I can tell)
pretty weak and largely abandoned, but most people never read about that, they
just saw the initial salvo and took it as gospel. That's where we are right
now - we have gotten to the point where we _take_ accusations of bias
seriously, but not yet the point where we always _make_ them that way. We have
the power to destroy the careers of bad people, but not yet the responsibility
to use it wisely or sparingly. Right now, the result of that is an
understandable reticence to speak frankly about controversial topics and to
hash out ideas in public, which is what the essay is describing.

------
thowar2
Things Americans living outside of America have known for awhile.

------
rndmize
I don't think controversial ideas are the problem, or changing cultural
standards of what is acceptable to do or discuss. I think at the core,
discussion itself is less valued.

To have an useful discussion with someone, there needs to be an assumption of
good faith on both sides - that each person will make an effort to see things
from the perspective of the other, will set aside semantics and minor errors
that don't matter, will directly confront key points that are brought up and
will admit errors or spaces where they lack knowledge or clarity.

This assumption of good faith, in my view, has been the major casualty of
modern politics and the new means of communication tech has provided to us in
the last decades. It is easier than ever to surround yourself with views that
match your own, to gorge on straw-men and memes and bad faith arguments that
then result in pattern-matching responses when dealing with someone of
opposing views.

\---

That said, I suspect there might be something else at play here in Sam's case.
In the last decade we've seen tech grow up, and much of this has shattered the
"tech is the way to a better future" idea. Google has gone from "do no evil"
to the biggest marketing and personal information gathering force on the
planet, with intentions that now seem ambiguous at best. Facebook has gone
from a convenient way to stay in contact with people or make new connections
to a machine optimized to capture human attention to such a degree that
notable former Facebook folk are coming out of the woodwork to say they don't
use it and forbid their kids. Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated the
capability to have massive impact on politics, seemingly in negative ways, and
seem to avoid interest in taking responsibility for the impacts of their
platforms.

All of this leads to people being less optimistic about tech and startups.
Sure, Uber sounded like a great idea at the start, but now? All those people
working below the API seem to be in the same spot as the taxi drivers before -
making minimal money, in debt over a car instead of a medallion, etc. And
above it, a valuation of billions. It feels like a resource extraction
project, where the average people are squeezed for the wealth growth of
investors and techies.

Capitalism has a warping effect on tech. The successful startups aren't about
saving the world, or making things better - they're about making money. If
that coincides with doing good for the world, great - and if it doesn't, oh
well, because making things better isn't actually the name of the game. It's a
feel-good thing to put SV above finance or resource extraction or energy - and
less people are believing it.

China probably just hasn't gotten there yet. They're still in their tech
honeymoon phase, where everything is great - easier ways to pay, communicate,
etc. Given that they're used to restrictions on communication and what they're
allowed to know and think, maybe they'll never leave it.

------
shadowtree
In China no one laughs about your Juicero investment - as they make a killing
producing it for you.

------
WillyOnWheels
n-gate.com is going to have a wonderful time with the comments here.

------
IA21
Let's make it 800 comments.

------
hprotagonist
_Randy was forever telling people, without rancor, that they were full of
shit. That was the only way to get anything done in hacking. No one took it
personally. Charlene 's crowd most definitely did take it personally. It
wasn't being told that they were wrong that offended them, though. It was the
underlying assumption that a person could be right or wrong about _anything_.
So on the Night in Question the night-- of Avi's fateful call -- Randy had
done what he usually did, which was to withdraw from the conversation.

In the Tolkien, not the endocrinological or Snow White sense, Randy is a
Dwarf. Tolkien's Dwarves were stout, taciturn, vaguely magical characters who
spent a lot of time in the dark hammering out beautiful things, e.g. Rings of
Power. Thinking of himself as a Dwarf who had hung up his war ax for a while
to go sojourning in the Shire, where he was surrounded by squabbling Hobbits
(i.e., Charlene's friends), had actually done a lot for Randy's peace of mind
over the years. He knew perfectly well that if he were stuck in academia,
these people, and the things they said, would seem momentous to him. But where
he came from, nobody had been taking these people seriously for years. So he
just withdrew from the conversation and drank his wine and looked out over the
Pacific surf and tried not to do anything really obvious like shaking his head
and rolling his eyes._

\-- Cryptonomicon, 1999.

~~~
teekert
But you see," said Roark quietly, "I have, let’s say, sixty years to live.
Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If
I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of
torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible
to me. But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I
inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at
the beginning of one.

\---

Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You've
wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any
man stopped and asked himself whether he's ever held a truly personal desire,
he'd find the answer. He'd see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams,
his ambitions are motivated by other men. He's not really struggling even for
material wealth, but for the second-hander's delusion - prestige. A stamp of
approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he
has succeeded. He can't say about a single thing: 'This is what I wanted
because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me'. Then he
wonders why he's unhappy.

\---

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads
armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all
had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision
unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the
thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the
men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new
invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane
was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia
was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They
fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

~~~
dsr_
They all stood on the shoulders of giants, who were themselves part of huge
and ancient communities of people working together.

~~~
teekert
Sometimes, sure. But sometimes it takes years of effort and loneliness, that
is at least where the "and yet it moves" quote comes from. I my mind at least,
Galilei was alone, with unpopular, dangerous views, against a huge number of
people with another opinion. It is what the piece is about, it is what the
Fountainhead is about.

~~~
hprotagonist
"solo science gods make great advances" is not at all what "E Pur Si Muove"
means.

It means that the material world is what it is, and that reality is not
modulated by human decree.

~~~
teekert
To me, and I'm entitled to my own feeling about "E Pur Si Muove" ;), it also
stands for a strong believe in one's own observations, a strong will that is
not swayed by the masses and the loneliness that comes with it. The sentence
"E Pur Si Muove" may provide people with the strength needed to voice their
unconventional theories.

------
BinaryIdiot
This thread is pretty much useless. It's just hundreds of "my anecdotal point
beats your anecdotal point". Scrolling through at least 95% of everything I
saw is either "I've lived in the following 5+ places and the Bay Area is the
worst" or the exact inverse of that.

I don't even entirely understand the blog post. Did Sam see mean comments on
the internet then write up something about how we can't talk about things
because of said mean comments?

Something everyone, including Sam, is missing is this: everyone has different
experiences than you and, more importantly, in an anonymous setting such as
the internet you're going to get extreme views not necessarily representing
the majority far more frequently (and more loudly) than anything that could be
considered moderate. Stop giving so much of a shit what other people think.

------
btilly
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) is
very relevant about how we got here.

As Paul Graham said then, the biggest threats to free thought and speech come
from people who have just enough power to enforce taboos, and not enough to be
confident in their power. In this case the political ideology that is stifling
thought is one that has nationwide lost Congress, the Senate and the
Presidency. Which naturally results in a strong "us vs them" mentality, and
stronger incentives to require that everyone prove that they are part of "us".

The result is, as I've heard it put, _Liberals are tolerant of anything except
being conservative._

This is not, of course, one-sided. If you lived in a deeply religious part of
the country you'd find similar levels of intolerance towards liberal ideas as
a result of feeling like they are on the receiving end of years of losing the
culture war. That won't be the problem that you experience in the Bay area.
But it is two sides of the same mentality that you are either with us or
against us.

~~~
cortesoft
Well, another way of putting it is "Liberals are tolerant of anything except
intolerance"

If I want to be a tolerant and accepting person, do I have to accept someone
who wants to deny a group of people to marry the person they love? Do I have
to tolerate someone who wants to control a woman's body?

This is similar to a love of freedom; I want everyone to have freedom, but
that means having to restrict the freedom to infringe on other people's
freedom. That might seem to be a contradiction, but it is a paradox you have
to address.

~~~
Houshalter
That's how they justify it, but empirically it doesn't seem to be the case.
E.g. liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme
opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against
homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same
level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get.

I think it's just based on how much of a threat a group is. If conservatives
were a tiny minority of the population like Muslims are, no one would care
enough to hate them.

>wants to deny a group of people to marry the person they love? Do I have to
tolerate someone who wants to control a woman's body?

This is super uncharitable btw. Imagine a conservative saying "why do I have
to tolerate someone who literally wants to murder children?"

~~~
cortesoft
> E.g. liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme
> opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly
> against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near
> the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get.

I think this is a common misunderstanding among conservatives of a certain
type.

The pattern seems to be:

A right-wing person makes a statement saying, "We need to stop allowing
Muslims into this country to protect ourselves against terrorism"

A liberal response is to say, "That is intolerant. You can't group all Muslims
as terrorists. We need to be tolerant of people with different faiths"

Right-wing response: "What?! You get mad at Christian conservatives for being
anti-gay, but you want us to tolerate Muslims? Muslims are even MORE anti-gay
than Christian conservatives!"

The problem is that liberals AREN'T tolerant of Muslims who have anti-gay
beliefs; we are as against them as we are against Christian's who are anti-
gay. The liberal position is that you shouldn't lump ALL Muslims together;
there are Christians and Muslims who are tolerant of homosexuals and
Christians and Muslims who are intolerant of homosexuals. We are against the
latter group. We are defending the moderate Muslims who aren't intolerant
against being lumped in with the intolerant ones, but conservatives seem to
think that is a blanket support for all Muslims.

Now, of course, the reponse when I make this point is usually to link to some
tweet or post by a self-proclaimed liberal supporting anti-gay Muslims.
However, these are often parody tweets or posts made by a conservative trying
to mock liberals support of Muslims, or perhaps some delusional person who
calls themselves a liberal. It is NOT an opinion held by the majority of
liberals.

And yes, my characterization of pro-life as being trying to control a woman's
body might be a bit uncharitable. I could have worded it more neutrally.

~~~
Houshalter
>The problem is that liberals AREN'T tolerant of Muslims who have anti-gay
beliefs; we are as against them as we are against Christian's who are anti-
gay.

In principle, yes. In practice they definitely are not. Liberals are not going
on mass firing and blacklist campaigns of conservative Muslims. They aren't
getting filtered and censored on social medial platforms. There is nowhere
near the same level of _emotional_ hatred and vitriol towards them. And anyone
that has such hatred is seen as a bigot. But the same level of hate towards
Christians is perfectly accepted.

This was a big issue in the atheist community. A lot of atheist thinkers
became massively successful for mocking and criticizing christians. But there
was huge controversy when they started doing the same for Muslims.

What happened? Well Muslims might have the same wrong beliefs. But they aren't
The Hated Outgroup like the Christians were.

~~~
cortesoft
> Liberals are not going on mass firing and blacklist campaigns of
> conservative Muslims.

Where are these 'mass' campaigns happening? I am sure there are some by fringe
liberal groups, but 'mass' is probably an overstatement. Same with filtered
and censored on social media; I see plenty of right wing posts on Facebook and
Twitter.

> This was a big issue in the atheist community. A lot of atheist thinkers
> became massively successful for mocking and criticizing christians. But
> there was huge controversy when they started doing the same for Muslims.

Any examples? I have never seen any 'huge controversy' for mocking
conservative Muslim beliefs.

Some of what you are observing probably also has to do with location and
culture; the people posting things encounter a lot more conservative
Christians in their day to day life than conservative Muslims. You don't have
the same emotional response to something that isn't happening near you.

I am realizing as we are continuing this discussion how difficult it is to
reach each other. A lot of this has to do with our own perceptions of the
zeitgeist of society, and we clearly are not seeing the same things. I see the
massive power social conservatives wield over our national discourse and
politics, while you see the power liberals hold. I don't know how we can
convince each other. We can both surely find countless examples of both
conservatives and liberals making comments that prove our points, and
countless examples to disprove the other person's.

I feel like so much of this is your own personal lens with which you see the
world. I don't think we can show the other person our lens through an
anonymous internet forumn.

~~~
Houshalter
There are a number of high profile examples like Mozillas CEO being kicked out
for donating to conservative groups or Damore's firing. As far as mass
campaigns, there's a number of managers that have admitted to keeping
political blacklists just within Google: [https://www.inc.com/sonya-
mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.h...](https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-
manifesto-blacklists.html) And there are various large campaigns to dox people
on the far right like [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/08/14/543418271...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/08/14/543418271/on-the-internet-everyone-knows-you-re-a-racist-
twitter-account-ids-marchers) which have been successful in getting numerous
people fired.

~~~
cortesoft
Again, the Mozilla CEO held a belief that some of his employees didn't deserve
the rights that other employees had. Should he have remained CEO if he shared
his belief that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry?

If your belief is that you want to deny rights to some people, you are going
to be held accountable by society in the sense that you won't get to hold
powerful jobs. You won't be arrested, but society isn't going to let you run a
public company.

~~~
btilly
"Society" does no such thing. As proof note that Dan Cathy is still CEO of
Chick-Fil-A. As further proof look at who is running Washington these days.

What does that are liberals who are trying to assert their power. Now I would
bet that most of the liberals who helped bring about that result wouldn't
support a legal right for polygamy, polyandry, or marriage between close
relatives.

Why not? While being sexually attracted to close relatives is very rare, the
portion of the population that is preferentially polyamorous is larger than
the proportion that is preferentially gay. Why should people who wish to make
multiple commitments not have the rights that gay people have?

I submit that their reasons for not supporting those causes are no better or
worse than Brendan Eich's for not supporting gay marriage. I further submit
that when people are punished for publicly supporting statements that half of
the nation supports, you're creating chilling effects for free speech that fly
in the face of how this democracy is supposed to work.

In the sake of disclosure, my white mother was married to a Chinese man before
that was legal in much of the country. Furthermore my sister performed a gay
marriage before THAT was legal most places, and I have another close relative
who was openly polyandrous for over a decade. As a libertarian, my only issue
with gay marriage is why the government involves itself in people's private
affairs.

But that is a lot less important to me than concern over political correctness
making people feel scared about expressing unpopular opinions. When am I going
to have an unpopular opinion that I get penalized for?

------
blfr
_We need to accept that some of these ideas ... are inherently dangerous._

Maybe but somehow we don't focus on dangerous ideas. Communism is by far the
most dangerous idea devised in the west. It infected dozens of societies and
led them to a century of poverty, slavery, and hundred million deaths.

Yet someone who's open about being a communist won't really be ostracised in
SF. Communist flags are available on Amazon. Communist subreddits are not
banned. So no, I don't buy this new wave of censorship as a defence against
dangerous ideas.

~~~
papaf
_century of poverty, slavery, and hundred million deaths_

I am genuinely curious about where you get the figure of 100 million deaths
from. I also believe that all the societes that had slaves were capitalist
ones.

But we can both agree that communism leads to poverty although the poorest
countries in the world are failed states rather than communist:
[https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-poorest-countries-
in...](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-poorest-countries-in-the-
world.html)

~~~
blfr
Black Book of Communism

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

~~~
bjl
In other words, one of the least respected books in modern historical
scholarship.

~~~
barry-cotter
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communis...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes)

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred
in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China
under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the
number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low
of 21 million to a high of 70 million.

------
ringaroundthetx
Thanks for mentioning this, what you describe isn't "danger" in the bay area,
it is just unnecessary opinions.

------
addicted
\---It is bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is a sphere,
that evolution is real, or that the sun is at the center of the solar system.

Wait can people not say these things in SF?

If not then what's the point of this post.

If so, then wow SF, Thats messed up.

~~~
kevlar1818
It's an analogy to "heretical" ideas from history.

~~~
fvdessen
I would guess that a major part of "On The Origin of Species" by Charles
Darwin is still heretical in San Francisco.

------
junkscience2017
Tech liberals created this dictatorship, so enjoy sleeping in a bed of your
own making Sam

~~~
amsheehan
Though it may be true that some liberals who work in technology argue about
pronouns, that doesn't mean the entire set of liberals working in technology
_did_ anything.

~~~
nine_k
> did anything.

...except maybe tacitly agreeing with people who posited that talking about
something was a bad thing, because, you know, in this particular case freedom
of speech is trumped by more important considerations.

This is, of course, not limited to liberals, or any other political
affiliation.

~~~
amsheehan
Freedom of speech is part of a legal framework. It means you won't be arrested
for something you say or express. Doesn't mean anyone has to have a positive
response to everything anyone says.

------
letsbehonest
If you meant a single word of this essay, HN would not be a place where people
are routinely banned for being critical of your portfolio companies, or for
expressing any political idea that is even moderately leftist.

You're a vile hypocrite. And there's nothing to debate, there. It's just
fucking true.

~~~
dang
> _routinely banned for being critical of your portfolio companies_

When people say this always I try to point out that the opposite is the truth.
Maybe I can't convince you, but I want to reassure any silent readers who
might worry about this. Literally the first rule of HN moderation is what we
moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved. Plenty more on
this at
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20moderate%20less&sort...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20moderate%20less&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)
if anyone wants it.

> _You 're a vile hypocrite. And there's nothing to debate, there. It's just
> fucking true._

Even though this breaks the HN guideline in bannable ways, it feels like more
of a cri de coeur to me, so I'm going to leave it up for now. But really,
you're just making things worse both for the community and for said coeur. It
would be better to speak more directly about what you feel, and if possible to
connect it with what others are saying. I mean really connect it, as opposed
to throwing something in opposition. You don't have to reduce any of your
views to do this.

------
mooe
The title of your essay is the very height of arrogance.

Your assertion is that it is very important to human progress that people who
despise homosexuals (or others) be allowed to spread their hatred without any
social or professional repercussions.

This is, at best, a questionable assertion, and it is one that you give no
evidence for.

However, you are so insanely fucking arrogant that you're comparing yourself
to Gallileo? As you fight for the right of powerful oppressors to demonize
minorities?

Go fuck yourself, sam. Go fuck yourself.

I know that you're a fucking coward, so you won't respond. You'll probably
just have dang delete the post (because you do not actually believe in open
speech).... but man... fuck you, and fuck your shitty fucking parents for
raising you to believe that it's somehow more important to protect bigotry and
hatred than it is to protect actual goddamned people.

------
alexanderstears
This was shockingly charitable. So many leftists hate the tenants of science,
western culture, and wealth that they want to crush it under their heel.

The same people who oppose life extension on the grounds of the environmental
cost probably applaud uneducated africans having 7 kids.

The people who oppose understanding a genetic basis of intelligence would tell
you that each human is blank slate with equal potential to every other human.

The people who oppose wealth are the ones who advocate for full luxury
socialism/communism.

Frankly, the only reason we have so many voices opposed to these good things
is because our welfare state is too generous - people can survive on food
stamps and ruminate about the moral evils of capitalism. If they had to get a
job, their idle hands would do less of the devil's work.

It's good to see people waking up to the intolerance in San Francisco. I used
to enjoy going there, now whenever I visit I have to change my phone
background (away from a picture of a greek sculpture and the quote "tradition
is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire") so no one tries to
accuse me of being a n*zi and derails the business at hand. The world is worse
for the intolerance but hard times make stronger people - what the world needs
is titans and if we make a crucible for the titans then mission accomplished.

------
DonbunEf7
Don't be so dramatic. Baylife has always been terrible, but it was affordable
in the past, so people put up with it.

If you care too much about what other people think of you, then you possibly
aren't spending enough time thinking about things that aren't people.

~~~
shifter
In general, that makes sense. However, achieving big things requires working
with people, ergo their opinions do matter in that regard...

------
jonny_eh
Uh oh, Sam has been "red pilled".

Without providing more examples/specifics, it just reads as a tirade against
the boogeyman of "political correctness".

Is he upset that the SF crowd rejected Peter Thiel for endorsing Trump? Or is
he upset that Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla? Who knows? He's being so
coy.

~~~
alehul
He provided examples, and judging by the response on HN, it's a common issue
people feel.

You should take the strongest form of the argument to debate, not the weakest.

It would contribute more if you gave your response to why you disagree with
the necessity of fully dispelling bad ideas through reasoned debate, or why
you disagree that we have to accept the existence of bad or 'wacky' ideas
without ostracizing the person altogether in order to have the good ideas.

------
groby_b
Sam Altman is an idiot.

The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay
people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare
people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them.

And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And
everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But _there are consequences
to your speech_. And the consequence to this particular speech is that most
sane people will shun you. Tough luck, Sam. We've seen your colors when you
desperately clung to Peter Thiel, you've just shown a little bit more of
yourself.

And yes, of course we must allow the free exchange of ideas. But speech that
strips away the humanity of others is not "an idea". It's hate. And it
_cannot_ be accepted in a civil society, without undermining the very
foundations of that society.

I find it especially amusing that he thinks "gay people are evil" is perfectly
fine, but "biotech work is unethical" is something that really shouldn't be
said. He couldn't be much clearer about his actual intentions: he really
wouldn't like criticism of the things that make him money, and to not annoy
the existing "talent", bigotry should continue to be OK.

Putting that half-baked kind of intellectual dreck under a Galileo quote is a
truly Silicon Valley thing.

~~~
exolymph
You know that Altman himself is gay, right?

~~~
groby_b
Yes. And? That has _nothing_ to do with the argument I just made.

------
unityByFreedom
> I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in
> San Francisco.

Ideas _about what_? Did you try discussing free speech or democracy? Did you
try to show a flag of Tibet or Taiwan?

It's true that a lot of people in China are free from the same political
concerns of Americans, yet, how has that turned out for them in the long term?
Per capita GDP?

------
jstewartmobile
Vibe I'm getting off this post is that it's ok to be PC and woke until that
starts interfering with money getting _absolutely everything it wants_.

I am not surprised that he felt more comfortable in China...

------
Analemma_
I might have more sympathy for this post if I only knew about it in the
abstract and wasn't familiar with specific cases. For example, lately among
Bay Area types, and especially the Rationalist community, there's been a surge
of interest in eugenics and scientific racism, now euphemistically rebranded
as "human biodiversity". It tends to take the form of hand-wringing about how
"people from certain regions" have lower IQs and just how dreadful that is.

Just keep in mind that when Valley "thought leaders" complain about the lack
of freedom to discuss ideas, those are the kinds of ideas they're talking
about.

~~~
fundingshovel
In general people from certain regions do have lower IQs... What makes this
bad thing to study? Is the cause culture? Genetics? Education? I think the
entire point of article is that asking the question somehow makes you a bad
person, instead of a person with a controversial idea.

~~~
tclancy
>In general people from certain regions do have lower IQs

It's been 23 years since The Bell Curve and I am still waiting for someone who
makes this statement and seems to have a solid grasp on the problem of general
IQ scores across wildly different populations. I think there's a reason I
never see it . . .

------
JulianRaphael
Solid post and long due.

However, judging from a recent Y Combinator post
([https://blog.ycombinator.com/13-startup-
ideas/](https://blog.ycombinator.com/13-startup-ideas/)) on 13 startup ideas
from YC alumni and staff for startup ideas that they wish would exist, Sam
should start right in front of his own door regarding "working on less ideas
for the 1%".

