
What You Can't Say (2004) - Blahah
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
======
ggreer
Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for:

1\. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than
rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll
be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will
become cruel and unusual.

2\. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not
conscious, most tasty animals can suffer just as much as we can. They have
desires and kin. Some even mourn the passing of their brethren. But few eyes
are batted when our microencephalized cousins are abused and killed by the
billions. Cheap in-vitro meat is probably a prerequisite for this change.

3\. Banning assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill. See
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-
decay/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/)

I doubt I'll be right on all of these, but I'm hopeful. Now for something I
really can't say: I think all three of these atrocities share a root cause.
Some of you will probably guess what I'm getting at.

~~~
nostromo
Dude, you're not trying hard enough. :)

Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism,
agism, Islamophobia, homophobia.

There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but
if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN!

I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban
gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men have
had no reason not to try and be as successful with as many partners as
possible. Women, who may be saddled with a pregnancy and baby for years, had
evolutionary pressure to be more choosy with sexual partners. This created
fertile ground for HIV to spread amongst gay men.

Now, could a straight person say that without being ostracized from polite
society? Probably not!

The question I would throw back to pg though is this: are we better or worse
off for avoiding these topics entirely? The truth sometimes comes at a cost.
Let's say that we found out that white people are less smart than East Asians.
What good could come from knowing that? I don't know the answer...

~~~
ucarion
I agree with you about most of those phobias, but I strongly disagree about
Islamophobia.

I think future societies will be surprised by how much human suffering we
permit in the name of being "tolerant". Religions are not all created equal,
and no intellectually honest person will claim that Islam and Jainism are
equally valid moral frameworks (this is why few people fret about
Jainophobia). We _know_ that Islam and its adherents are generous contributors
to the surplus of misery in the world. People concerned about the quality of
human life will recognize that we were right to be extremely suspicious of
Islam.

(Note that I'm defining Islamophobia as "deep suspicion of Islam / thoughts
informed by Islamic beliefs", especially when it comes to questions of
morality and ethics.)

~~~
gautamnarula
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, wrote an interesting post on
Islamophobia and how he believes it doesn't actually exist, at least not in
the framework that we normally consider phobias:
[http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-
controve...](http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-
controversy2/#views_on_islam)

The relevant part:

 _The meaning of “Islamophobia” is not at all like the meanings of those other
terms. It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice against Muslims from
ordinary racism and xenophobia directed at Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalis, and
other people who happen to be Muslim. Of course, there is no question that
such bigotry exists, and it is as odious as Greenwald believes. But inventing
a new term does not give us license to say that there is a new form of hatred
in the world. How does the term “anti-Semitism” differ? Well, we have a
2000-year-old tradition of religiously inspired hatred against Jews, conceived
as a distinct race of people, both by those who hate them and by Jews
themselves. Anti-Semitism is, therefore, a specific form of racism that, as
everyone knows, has taken many terrible turns over the years (and is now
especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons that can be explicitly traced
not merely to recent conflicts over land in the Middle East, but to the
doctrine of Islam). “Sexism,” generally speaking, is a bias against women, not
because of any doctrines they might espouse, but because they were born
without a Y chromosome. The meanings of these terms are clear, and each names
a form of hatred and exclusion directed at people, as people, not because of
their behavior or beliefs, but because of the mere circumstances of their
birth.

Islamophobia is something else entirely. It is, Greenwald tells us in his
three points, an “irrational” and “disproportionate” and “unjustified” focus
on Muslims. But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a
group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam. There is no
race of Muslims. They are not united by any physical traits or a diaspora.
Unlike Judaism, Islam is a vast, missionary faith. The only thing that defines
the class of All Muslims—and the only thing that could make this group the
possible target of anyone’s “irrational” fear, “disproportionate” focus, or
“unjustified” criticism—is their adherence to a set of beliefs and the
behaviors that these beliefs inspire.

And, unlike a person’s racial characteristics or gender, beliefs can be argued
for, tested, criticized, and changed. In fact, wherever the norms of rational
conversation are allowed to do their work, beliefs must earn respect. More
important, beliefs are claims about reality and about how human beings should
live within it—so they necessarily lead to behavior, and to values, laws, and
public institutions that affect the lives of all people, whether they share
these beliefs or not. Beliefs end marriages and start wars.

So “Islamophobia” must be—it really can only be—an irrational,
disproportionate, and unjustified fear of certain people, regardless of their
ethnicity or any other accidental trait, because of what they believe and to
the degree to which they believe it. Thus the relevant question to ask is
whether a special concern about people who are deeply committed to the actual
doctrines of Islam, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, is irrational,
disproportionate, and unjustified._

~~~
tunesmith
I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational
and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that
are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can
reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the
doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who
practices Islam is "deeply committed to the actual doctrines" as practiced by
the hijackers, which is false. He's implying that people who practice
Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs, when in reality they will
target them by their headwear (see the various crimes against Sikhs, one of
the gosh-darn nicest religions in the world). Every time I read something by
Harris my blood boils a bit because of how insidious his pseudo-logic is.

~~~
ivanca
>that people who practice Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs,
when in reality they will target them by their headwear

Are you proposing that they should read minds? As far as I know that's not
possible so this statement is preposterous, of course they are going to target
by the headgear/skin-color, is the only way they can determine who is Islamic
and who is not; being bad at it is a different matter.

~~~
MarkTee
Reread the comment you're replying to; that's exactly what he's saying.

------
mef
_Let 's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be
reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If
everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that
possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever
you're told.

The other alternative would be that you independently considered every
question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered
acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same
mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can
tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's
very convincing evidence._

Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be
unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?

~~~
cryoshon
It's possible, yeah, but you have to be particularly insensitive to both
verbal and nonverbal rejection cues in order to be willing to do it more than
once.

Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a
lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other
with a blank/expectant/fearful face.

~~~
jiggy2011
This can depend a lot on the particular peer group and the opinion holders
position within it. Plenty of people will state proudly that they hold certain
controversial views (often borderline racist etc) but they tend to surround
themselves with people who either hold those views themselves or by people who
are meek enough to accept the views without resistance so the social penalty
doesn't apply.

------
ChuckMcM
I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of
God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations
or private gun ownership.

It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th
century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But
that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.

Always interesting to think about.

~~~
waps
Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten.
He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo
for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church.

And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the
scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a
political agitator and generally a lunatic, read his letters, you'll see that
I'm actually quite polite here). Rather he was organizing demonstrations and
violence because the church owed him a different kind of state (needless to
say, with him on top) because the earth rotated around the sun (amongst many
other "reasons", most of them quite insane). This case was then dug up later
to justify ripping the catholic church out of Germany. That failed, but the
story about Galileo stuck.

Some of our historical heroes ... aren't heroes. Socrates is a similar
situation. Celebrated philosopher. Speaker at nearly every forum (meaning the
weekly meeting where their direct democracy happened). He was an advocate, a
statesman, a philosopher.

And then they execute him. Wait. What ? Nobody ever seems to think that
they've probably skipped over small part of the story here.

An inaccurate summary was that Socrates' students were involved TWICE with
actions that led to the military sacking of Athens, with very strong
suspicions of him having ordered them to do so. This "just happened" to occur
right after one of the first times he didn't get his way in the forum. The
first time he got off with a stern warning, execution of every one of his
students involved that sided with the occupying force, and a promise not to
have any students for 2 years, which he promptly ignored. Then it very nearly
happened again, and again his students were helping the enemy army. Then he
was executed together with his students.

There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed for
organizing violent protests against the state (using, amongst many other
things, the idea that the earth rotated around the sun as a rallying idea).

Likewise, Socrates was likely killed for organizing the military conquest of
Athens when he couldn't democratically get his way in parliament _twice_ (and
for having a habit of sleeping with the wives of other Atheneans). Not because
Atheneans were afraid of science.

Neither of them were very nice people. Not that horrible people can't be
important forces of good in history, but you should at least note that this is
so. E.g. Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal
than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the
west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time. He
ended it because he thought it was a waste of money, effort and most of all,
lives, not because he was against war. He just didn't believe the objective
was worth the cost. Still, his importance in making our current mostly
democratic world possible is at least on par with Churchill. But he is a
monster, personally responsible for several ethnic extermination campaigns, no
doubt about that.

~~~
Jtsummers
> There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed

Where do you get that he was executed?

Also, regarding differences between Copernicus's treatment and Galileo's.
Copernicus didn't publish a lot of his material, nor was it widely known,
until late in life. Galileo basically stepped into the controversy that had
developed _after_ Copernicus died. Essentially, there was little controversy
in Copernicus's time because it wasn't widely known, and those that did know
his theory didn't have a reason (yet) to view it as controversial or "wrong".

~~~
waps
This is my point. Galileo didn't advance knowledge by his acts, that was
already done (within the scientific community if not within the wider world)
(And granted, he did advance knowledge at other times on other subjects). He
attempted to use it to change the state by agitating large portions of the
population using that fact.

I would even say he was not so much looking to change the state, rather to
destroy it, becoming a sort of dictator himself, without any thought to what
that would do. This he did after a few years of sending out letter that made
it very clear he would immediately execute half the nobility and clergy if he
did come to power. It didn't help that he had pissed off all of his teachers
and environment with those letters. This is what his trial was really about,
and of course it mentioned his rallying cries.Those were not the essence of
the trial though.

Think about it. Suppose you're an autocratic ruler in the middle ages, in
Italy. Everybody's writing letters, a lot of them calling for your throat
getting slit. One more of these lunatics starts writing letters. Disturbing
letters, lots of them. You ignore him, at this point, there's 100 others like
him. Then a few demonstrations happen, led by him, with hundreds of people
calling for your throat getting slit on the street. This is unnerving, but
happens regularly, most demonstration leaders are never seen again, so, again,
you probably ignore this. But if he manages to make the demonstrations grow,
you've got to react. That's what happened.

Regardless if you agree with the second paragraph, he was not attacked because
he claimed the earth rotated around the sun.

~~~
Jtsummers
Can you cite some sources on Galileo as instigator against the state? I've
never heard of this before. Also, did you really mean, in your OP, to say that
he was executed? That was the first I'd heard of that, and everything I
checked (in an admittedly short search) indicated that he died of old age.

~~~
lazyant
he doesn't know what he's talking aout

~~~
Jtsummers
I figured as much. For a while I thought waps was going for an ironic, given
the pg post that prompted this, posting. Now I think s/he is serious, but
without citations there's no way to know for certain. Either way, I learned
more about Copernicus and Galileo trying to figure out what waps was talking
about.

------
brd
"Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a
group of your peers?"

I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate
from yesterday.

How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with
saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to
create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far
more rational strategy to act upon.

~~~
hobs
I had this thought this morning, though of a slightly different tone. The
radio talking head mentioned that they were going to interview an anti-
civilizationist, someone who apparently thinks that developed society is
unsustainable and will be the end of us all. Apparently he advocates for a
return to pre-civilization?

I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If
this involves some sacrifice of human lives, it will save trillions in the
long run. Pre-civilizaiton is just waiting for the next asteroid to impact the
planet."

I don't understand how someone could be against civilization.

~~~
gus_massa
2000 yeas ago, the Earth population was ~200 Millions. (This is only an
estimation, so don't take the number too seriously.) And 2000 years ago, we
had ~10,000 years of agriculture and ~5,000 years of diverse grades of
civilization.

So, to go to a pre-civilization population level we need at least
6,900,000,000 volunteers.

~~~
dredmorbius
They don't necessarily have to volunteer. There's always the option of a
forced choice. More likely through disease and/or starvation in my book,
though other forms of population reduction are possible.

The argument that present, let alone near-future projected populations are
long-term sustainable doesn't merit much support in my book.

And, NB, your 200 million estimate's reasonably close -- Wikipedia gives
estimates of 150 - 330 million worldwide as of 0 CE:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates)

------
scoofy
I don't really understand this article. What is the point of an empirical
approach to taboo. I was a student of philosophy for years, and ethics is
essentially a top-down way of finding the exact things he's looking for.
Whether it be Kant's categorical imperative or Singer's expanding circle, it
seems to me this taboo chasing is missing the bigger picture of finding a
justifiable ethical framework, and then everything he's asking about falls out
simply, and easily.

~~~
bal00ns
You're right, this article is missing the bigger picture, but I don't think
that was ever its target. It's simple, accessible, and piques peoples interest
into something much bigger. I don't see it as an attempt to directly
contribute to any specific field.

~~~
scoofy
But it's just plane incorrect. It conflates ethics with aesthetics.

>What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as
arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people.

It may appear that morality behaves like fashion, but it's doesn't, or at
least it shouldn't. The key ingredient here is that in fashion, there is no
wrong, only taste. Thus, you can pull back the curtain on any would-be wizard
trying to force you to conform.

In ethics, on the other hand, screaming a bunch of hurtful crap at people,
just because you're "not supposed to do that" isn't cocksure cleverness. It's
wrong. It hurts people. There are good, justifiable, reasons why you shouldn't
say them.

Do we have taboos we shouldn't have? Sure, but if we are going to talk about
them, they should be within a moral framework, not in some empirical mess of
hey-that-shouldn't-be-that-way.

------
Exenith
I'm pretty disappointed in most people's responses. Here's two real, actual
taboos that no one wants to touch with a 20ft stick:

1\. consensual incest

2\. consensual pedophilia

All of these things are just utterly shunned. It would be unspeakable for me
to argue in support of these in real life, except with very close friends and
in a very detached manner. In fact, this has probably put me on some sort of
list (especially considering the stuff I saw on 4chan last night...).

The interesting thing is that I would never want to do any of those things.
Yet I know that my own repulsion is based on irrational disgust, and the
reason for our shunning is also based on irrational disgust. When we take
universal moral baselines -- empathy, compassion -- none of these taboos,
assuming the sex is protected and consensual, harm anyone.

We've also got eugenics and polygamy, but I could probably argue for those
without being shot. Oh wow, and consensual cannibalism. I'm usually the
devil's advocate, but even this shit is starting to make me feel dirty.

------
sfx
I'm glad this was submitted here for discussion. The first time I read this
essay I had trouble coming up with ways our society behaves that "people in
the future will find ridiculous." Many of the ones in the comments are just
ways our society is backwards, but not many taboos.

1\. America's devoted support for our military. A support so unquestioning
that you can be beaten up for saying otherwise. Polar opposite from the
Vietnam war. Strange how much this has changed in less than forty years.

2\. Eugenics, while not totally taboo, it's hard to talk about it without
being labeled a bigot, racist, etc.

3\. I also think it's difficult to have a discussion on pedophiles that
doesn't involve advocating locking them up forever, it might be worth having a
more empathetic discussion on such crimes. (I almost didn't include this last
one for fear of getting in trouble, I rewrote it a dozen different times, but
it's such a taboo subject that it should be examined.)

~~~
namenotrequired
I'm happy you did include 3. While I can normally discuss absolutely anything
with my girlfriend, my opinion on this matter is one of the very few things
she refuses to discuss with me.

------
rubiquity
This is probably my favorite essay from PG. I think about it at least once a
week. It's easy to get caught up in a world of professionalism, which is just
a fancy word for acting like you aren't human, and go through every day doing
social norms just because they are social norms. This essay reminds me to stop
and think about the things that I do and see other people doing.

------
B-Con
> It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get
> everything just right.

I love this kind of insight. I think that we, as humans, are very egotistical
by nature. The time we're living in is _surely_ the time we have all the
answers and everything important figured out. We simply can't live with the
feeling of "eh, it'll be way better in 100 years". We always need the feeling
of certainty and ownership. Throughout history, we have always been certain of
what we thought, regardless of how much reason we had to believe it.

> If you believe everything you're supposed to now, how can you be sure you
> wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown
> up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in
> the 1930s-- or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you
> would have.

Here's a similar thought: "What are the odds that a huge percentage of the
people with a certain position were born together in the same geographic
location at the same time?" If that doesn't make you scared of being morally
brainwashed, I don't know what will.

------
Russell91
The true genius of this essay is that it gives to the reader a sense that
every controversial idea they believe is indeed correct.

~~~
mwfunk
That's what I'm seeing here. Very little discussion on the article, lots of
people posting lists of things they feel persecuted for believing, with the
implication being that they're sitting there drumming their fingers and
waiting to be validated by history. Oh, and other people arguing with them
about those things. Hooray for the Internet I guess? :)

~~~
ivanca
And of course there is the meta discussion where they feel superior for
analyzing the behavior of the crowd and pretending that discussing random
controversial matters is a childish behavior.

Hooray for internet I'm sure (not guess).

------
klochner
_The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous._

Hence the behavior you see inside many startups - non-founding members
questioning the mission/purpose/intention/success of the company is typically
taboo.

------
Jun8
"What can't we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things
people do say, and get in trouble for."

I was thinking of this very essay when pg "got into trouble" for his comments
about female founders, whenever I see vicious backlash to dissent here
whenever some of these issues are discussed. I think (haven't read anything to
back this, absolutely my own personal feeling) that debacle may have had just
a little bit in his decision to step down.

Read the section headed _Why_ once again, it's gold. This piece ranks in my
personal top ten pg essays.

It's so interesting that the piece mentions Summers, albeit one year earlier
than the famous speech
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes)).
I would so love to sit down with pg and have his honest opinions on this
subject. Of course, not probably he cannot afford to deviate from ""i pensieri
stretti & il viso sciolto."

------
nwenzel
Ask pg: What does the pg of today (the pg with kids) think about what the pg
of the past (circa 2004) wrote about the parts of the essay related to kids?

If there's something interesting to diff, it's the ideas people have that
pertain to taboos and taboo subjects before and after kids.

I suspect if more developers and engineers had kids, iPads would have a kid
mode. I wonder how thinkers and writers (and painters?) would think and write
and paint differently with/without kids.

------
whyme
I have to say, while I really like this article, I think it goes too far with
the statement: "Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot."

He prefaces that statement with a very black and white example of people who
ban the color yellow. Using that example every reader can agree they are
idiots, but in truth these issues are never that black and white. So calling
them idiots, and suggesting you would become one by entering the debate goes a
little too far - IMHO.

------
onmydesk
This all rather reminds me of the thinking that brought about the female
founders conference.

I have faith that at some point in the future this form of sexism will become
less fashionable !! What were we thinking you will all say. And no-one will
remember the dissenters.

~~~
camelite
So sexism is bad then. I guarantee you this is not something "you can't say",
or goes against today's moral fashion.

~~~
onmydesk
What you get a reaction to is not sexism is bad. It is that sexism in favour
of women is bad. You're not allowed to say that.

~~~
meric
The only mention of this taboo on this thread, and it is more dangerous to say
this in today's society than everything else suggested by everyone.
Congratulations.

I have more to add:

It is either extremely difficult or impossible for a society to treat its men
and women equally. Though it is possible to grant them equal respect, the
experience of living as a man and living as a woman is, and always will be,
different.

Assigning target ratios of men/women in various industries makes as much sense
as making sure each man have an equal number of sexual opportunities. There
are some jobs that, in general, one sex is better at, and so it _may_ be
perfectly possible for one sex to, on average, be the majority of those doing
that job, as well as, on average, attain a higher wage in that role, achieved
without the interference of some male authority past or present.

That would only get us started on the list of things we aren't allowed to say.

------
dbbolton
>It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if
necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few
professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in
physics.

I think this is a pretty unfair generalization, and furthers the stereotype
that STEM majors are smarter/harder-working/generally better than liberal arts
majors. It is not inconceivable to me that most people choose to major in
something they are passionate. I think people who choose a major just because
they perceive it as easy are a small minority of students.

Aside from that, I personally believe academic success is primarily due to
hard work, rather than intelligence. I imagine almost all PhDs are reasonably
intelligent and _could_ in fact make it through a physics program, provided
they were willing to put in the time and effort.

~~~
MatthiasP
Academic success is based on hard work, intelligence and to know exactly what
not to say.

------
applecore
Previous discussion (1789 days ago):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=581050](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=581050)

Today's discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7443420](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7443420)

Interesting.

------
robobro
Do you think you'll raise your children to believe in Santa, HN?

~~~
gatehouse
Honestly I will probably do as my parents did. I will buy christmas presents,
label them "From: Santa", and I'll put them under the tree in the middle of
the night, and I will decline to explain how they got there. My children can
choose or decline to believe whatever rumors are swirling around the
neighborhood.

EDIT: personally I never asked about it because I didn't want to risk stopping
the gifts.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
That is pretty much what my parents did. I turned out alright. And that is
pretty much what we are doing. I would rather my kids blindly believe in Santa
than blindly believe in God. They will need to reach an age where they must
question both of those things for themselves.

------
barce
In the future, people will not be measured by how productive they are. They
will see that human organizations greater than 150 people are divorced from
reality. Productivity will be considered a shared delusion held during the Age
of Work.

Managers often ask me how they can make their workers more productive. What I
cannot say is, "There is no productivity."

There is a book that goes into deconstructing productivity. It's called "How
to Survive in an Organization" by James Heaphey. It's based on a generation's
worth of study on organizations like corporations.

------
juliendorra
I see Sexism, Racism, Islamophobia (and speed limits !) mentionned as taboo
and unspeakable several times in this thread. I'm not sure we live in the same
era. There is mainstream politicians all over Europe and the US saying sexist,
racist and islamophobic things. They usually win votes by saying them. (And
there is motorist groups still openly advocating for no speed limits ;-).
There is a confusion here between unspeakable and "currently fought by a
sizable active minority".

------
tempestn
A fairly minor but prevalent one is speed limit laws. I personally feel most
speed limit laws in North America are ridiculous. In almost every situation it
is safe to drive significantly faster than the posted speed, so it seems
fairly obvious that there's something wrong with the law itself.

Now, in this particular group I expect that isn't _terribly_ controversial.
But it can be a very unpopular opinion in some circles for two different
reasons.

1) It's the _law_. You want to break the _law_?

And the somewhat more reasonable one:

2) Nothing is more important than human life. If driving slowly can save even
one life, it's worth it. By advocating an increase to speed limits, you're
valuing a few minutes of your time over people's lives.

Now, for one thing, it has been demonstrated by numerous studies that
increased speed limits do not necessarily result in increased accident rates
(in fact, often the opposite). But even leaving that aside. Say that an across
the board increase to speed limits of X%^ results in a Y% increase in fatal
crashes. For some sufficiently (very) small Y/X, would that not be worthwhile?
__It 's callous, but it seems to me that it must be true. (I mean, look at the
extreme case. Driving at any speed is much more dangerous than walking, but we
do it anyway since it gets us places faster.) I definitely wouldn't feel
comfortable saying so in a lot of peer groups though, nor without all the
preamble.

^Not that that would be the most logical way to do it of course.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm speaking of main arterial roads and highways
here, not residential streets. At least in most of Canada, almost all non-
highways have speed limits of 50km/h, regardless of whether they're a
residential side-street or a major 4 or 6 lane road. Most highways have limits
of 80km/h, a few 100, and the highest I've ever seen is 110. In good
conditions, most highways could easily be safely traveled at at least 120km/h.
I don't think it makes sense to set speed _limits_ for the worst case
scenario, and ignore all the efficiency that could be safely gained in most
driving conditions.

I haven't done a ton of driving in the US, so it's possible the situation
differs there more than I was aware.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't think you are correct about speed limits. Most limited access roads
can probably support higher speeds (Except when there is a lot of traffic
entering and exiting), but the majority of 2 lane roads don't have the
visibility to support much higher speeds (More developed roads probably do,
but they are small fraction of the total mileage).

Roads that see much pedestrian use certainly don't need higher limits (they
don't necessarily need lower limits either, just some better sharing system).

~~~
tempestn
I'm in Canada, so it's possible that my experience differs. I will edit the
post to clarify that I'm talking about arterial roads and highways though, not
residential streets. Most main non-highway roads here still have limits of
50km/h (30mph), with the average speed ranging around 20% higher than that.
Most highways have limits of 80km/h (50mph), with average speeds perhaps
10-20% higher, and IMO safe speeds in good conditions often 50% higher.

------
DickingAround
This article actually makes me think of something I first liked about hacker
news: I noticed that posts which went against widely accepted views tended to
be up-voted.

Seriously, even now when I'm writing something people like it'll generally ok
on any site. If I write something I think is well founded and people will not
agree with, it'll probably do better on hacker news.

I guess that reminds me to read and up-vote things that I didn't initially
like...

------
loourr
"To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and
power."

------
anaphor
It reminds me of this blog post by Moxie Marlinspike, basically people should
be allowed to dissent otherwise we will never have any progress because nobody
considered any alternatives.

[http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-
somethin...](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-
hide/)

------
joerich
If you know two or more languages you may realize that you cannot say the same
things with each language, actually there are some words that doesn’t exist in
some languages. For example, I’m from Spain, there are some adjectives that
doesn’t exist in English and the other way around. That is why I met English
people who have not the behavior of that adjectives (which doesn’t exist) and
Spanish people that don’t have the behavior of some adjectives I learned in
English which doesn’t exist in Spanish. I think cultures depend on the
adjectives they have, how are you gonna expect a behavior that you cannot
qualify with your own language with an adjective? As he says at the end”How
can you see the wave, when you are the water?” you have to go to other waters
(countries) to learn/absorb/feel about other waves(language, culture,
behaviour… or whatever) and at the same time you learn about the previous
water you were.

------
whyme
I find pg's earlier writings, like this one, to be the best.

------
onetwofiveten
Maybe future societies will condemn us for always being so opinionated on
subjects that we don't know much about, instead of just accepting that no-one
knows for sure yet.

------
hippoman
I'm surprised peadophilia and bestiality haven't come up. These are often
victimless but you can say "I want to have sex with children".

------
dghughes
Even something like a person's name change change within a generation, names
once considered male becoming primarily associated with females.

Swearing seems more commonplace now even in my workplace people casualy saying
fuck is as common as hello, even in front of small children. Not so long ago
you wouldn't dare say such a thing in a workplace.

------
bigd
Living longer is a problem, not a solution

Cars are a problem, not a solution

Religions are a problem, not a solution

Democracy is broken. Weighted democracy may work slightly better: (you take a
test on the voting matter and the weight of your vote is proportional to the
score)

this feels good...

------
AgathaTheWitch
If I made known my views on a number of issues to my coworkers, I would
quickly be looking for a new job and may even be shunned in the greater tech
community.

I've made peace with that knowledge.

------
woofuls
Capitalism.

------
iopq
Stretching before running increases your risk of injury. This is because you
inhibit the pain response and increase your mobility.

------
crististm
Wow - It's ten years already... Time flies.

------
Pxtl
I was going to post a comment but I deleted it.

~~~
incompatible
Well, Paul did suggest that you should keep your ideas to yourself. Why give
the NSA a list of all your subversive thoughts anyway? They can and will be
used against you, if the situation requires it.

------
diminish
tlwrl; Now that pg has more time to dive into the meta-er layers, guess we'll
see some progress with the Arc language.

~~~
robobro
This article was published in 2004.

~~~
sirkneeland
But it is no less true now.

If anything the explosion of ubiquitous and instantaneous social media has
only exacerbated the tendencies towards branding unorthodox thinking as
Thoughtcrime as a twittermob of snark and hatred can be summoned in hours if
not minutes.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely
with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking
of what you _should_ be saying, and then you start wondering what you should
be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you
start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually
subservient. If your concern is always how to please people, how can you be
expected to explore heresies? How can you plumb the depths of the unknown to
explore and discover things when you concern yourself with safety?

The immediacy of the medium rewards snark and off-the-cuff remarks instead of
analysis, insight, and distance. It incentivizes heated discussion (as it
garners more pageviews!) and cheap, "me too" posts. It generates a fear of
missing out, which is used to manipulate visitors into consuming more and more
content for less and less value, exactly like any addictive substance.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny
button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people
would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my
thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".

~~~
mattgreenrocks
I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes, especially in the face of
groupthink, perhaps so I can self-righteously claim that the groupthink exists
without giving time to fully think through the opposing side.

It can come off as aggressive, for sure. I do think a healthy community needs
skepticism and introspection to remain that way.

But I do think people unintentionally reinforce the notion of the status quo
needs to be reinforced/destroyed, which can affect the types of thoughts you'd
think about sharing with a group.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes_

Yes... there are times I do just say fuck it and post it anyway. HNKarma _is_
pretty worthless after all. :)

------
bjlorenzen
1\. War and conflict are desirable

2\. Unfit/unintelligent people should be sterilized

3\. Sex with children is ok

mad yet?

------
skylan_q
This is a great article.

 _If you believe everything you 're supposed to now, how can you be sure you
wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown
up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in
the 1930s-- or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you would
have._

This is lost on most people. You'll just hear "of course it was wrong!" and
this point won't be given further thought.

But if it was obvious that it was wrong, why did masses of people agree to
this? They wouldn't have done it if they also saw it as wrong.

So why are we the exception today? Couldn't we be just as gullible or
misguided? You have to move your own ego and preconceived notions aside to
seriously address the question.

~~~
cryoshon
It's difficult to overstate the power of propaganda. I think an apt comparison
here is the public's opinion of the Iraq war during the build up. The media
told people what to think, and, by and large, they thought what they were
told, or were cowed into silence. Not that it mattered-- millions protested
anyway, and were ignored.

To be blunt, the majority of people didn't even have the capacity to say "but
this is wrong!" whether behind closed doors, in their mind, or in public.

They have no agency.

I think a good rule is that people who are handed their worldview from the
mainstream media are going to be gullible/misguided by default. It's harsh,
but I haven't found any examples to the contrary yet.

~~~
wozniacki
I can't help but intrude here.

The point made in the italicized line [1] above is much much larger than the
typically-trite debate over the consumption of mass media narratives.

Reducing it to a talking point - about the power of mainstream media to
silence skeptics - cheapens the vast and profound meaning embedded in it.

This is not about doves vs hawks. This is much larger than that.

That statement is not just about propaganda or consensus, at the societal
level.

It is also about personal convention and the nature of agreeableness in
itself.

[1]

 _If you believe everything you 're supposed to now, how can you be sure you
wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown
up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in
the 1930s-- or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you would
have._

~~~
leoc
The major problem is that everyone\\* likes to believe that—while they, of
course, are not perfect!—they are _fundamentally_ , in the end of the day, a
basically decent and good and rational person. Likewise that their friends and
loved ones and co-workers are too. And that their lifestyle, and the society
they live in, and the institutions they belong to and identify with are
_fundamentally_ okay as well, not out-of-control nightmare carnivals. And that
in so far as things are seriously screwed up, it's the fault of _those other
guys_ , a clearly-identifiable outlaw, villain, or oppressor group which does
not include me or mine.

Of course, this is basically never true. But the unhappy realisation that it's
not true in _your own_ case is so agonising that the human mind distances
itself from it like a cat from a hot stovetop. Cosmic-horror stuff about how
many stars there are or how many metres you are from the centre of mass of the
universe are is just an amusing trifle in comparison. Even people who are
_rationally_ aware of some of this (often because they recite it once every
week) are protected by powerful psychological defence mechanisms from actually
having to confront the realisation very often. (Often the upshot of the weekly
exercises is that the person simply becomes more confident than ever that
they're a great person and they have it all figured out, in much the same way
that developing a self-image as a lover of truth and rationality so often
makes people markedly dumber.) Add to that the fact that, of course, changing
your behaviour to become less of a scumbag often comes with serious or very
serious costs to your well-being and relationships with others, and it's not
even close.

The final nasty kicker is that, of course, an individual person's judgement of
right and wrong isn't necessarily any better than that of his or her society.
Futhermore, people who share a particular critique (good God I hate that word)
of their society tend to band together into their own subcultures, partly to
better resist the material and social pressures from society to conform. So
now you have a new self-image, a new lifestyle and a new in-group, and the
process repeats itself.

\\* The few exceptions, sadly, are largely psychopaths and other people who
simply don't give a shit.

~~~
onnoonno
[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm)

I think his ideas about us humans are brilliant. Still are very relevant. We
didn't change. I believe Nietzsche turned out to be extremely far-sighted.

Would Zarathustra be the opposite of your scumbag description?

------
whatevsbro
This seems timely in light of the new "pending comments" system.

What it boils down to, is comments being _censored by default_ , until they're
_possibly_ uncensored by group-think. As if the community needed a narrower
focus on supporting Basic Income and other misguided but popular ideas.

The effect will be silencing unharmonious views, which seems like something
the author of "What You Can't Say" would see. Maybe silencing dissent is the
goal here. I don't expect (m)any of my own comments to get uncensored.

------
dreamfactory2
> "most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in
> French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it
> through a PhD program in physics"

This is simply an embarrassingly stupid and ignorant comment.

The rest of it is fine if stating the obvious/sophomoric. I'd have like to
have seen him take the interesting nuggets on fashion being political in
nature and run with it (already well understood by fashion students but might
deserve wider exposure).

~~~
waterlesscloud
I'd be surprised if PhDs in either of those fields genuinely disagreed with
that.

~~~
slvv
Well, I don't quite qualify - I have a BA in French and I'm working on a PhD
in another humanities discipline - but I disagree pretty strongly with the
idea that a physicist could do what a French literature specialist does but
not vice versa.

