
A Clarification - craigkerstiens
http://blog.samaltman.com/a-clarification
======
throwaway0255
He made his original point pretty clearly in my opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-
Berkele...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkeley-
protest-against-Milo-Yiannopoulos-Feb-2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
whatshisface
Who decides what voices should be silent?

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
jrs95
I can't be on board with this because the way it's treated currently is a one
way street. As much as I hate the stuff you're mentioning specifically, I'm
not going to call for those people to be silenced when it's acceptable and
somewhat popular to say the same thing about whites, men, straight people,
etc. And ultimately calling for silencing the far right while doing and saying
nothing about equally abhorrent ideas on the far left only creates useful
propaganda for the people you want to silence.

As for your specific example, it doesn't really fit into what's happening now.
Violence towards people labelled as fascists is common, but not the other way
around. And in parallel cases, things like "death to cops" has absolutely led
to an increase in people murdering police officers. This whole thing is
benefiting the far right from a propaganda standpoint.

~~~
fao_

      when it's acceptable and somewhat popular to say the same thing about whites, men, straight people, etc.
    

You're ignoring the power dynamics. Take trans women for example. 46% will
commit suicide, over 80% have experienced assault (and only a slightly lower
statistic for sexual assault). Thus a cis person saying something of the sort
like "trans women should be murdered" is propagating an idea that has very
real effect on the world. Since it is already accepted that trans women are
harmed as such, making such a statement propagates the harmful ideas further.
It is very likely that after that person makes such a comment, a trans woman
will die.

In contrast, cis white men are not being murdered by trans women. Thus for
them to state that "cis should die" is a act of protest, and has very little
effect on the real world. The difference is: Is this likely to happen, is this
happening, and has this happened? In the former instance the case is yes, in
the latter the case is no.

    
    
      Violence towards people labelled as fascists is common, but not the other way around. 
    

On the contrary, fascists have murdered in recent years: 1 British politican
(Joe Cox). 2 American Representatives. A number of American people[0][1]. I
can bring up more examples but I'd like to get off this site sometime today :)
Besides, it's trivial to google.

Indeed, White Supremacy is listed as one of the things that the US DHS is
working to combat[2]

    
    
      "death to cops" has absolutely led to an increase in people murdering police officers.
    

Source please? All I've seen is more police killing unarmed and already
restrained people.

[0]: James Fields was a fascist. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/aug/13/charlottesvi...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/aug/13/charlottesville-james-fields-charged-with-was-pictured-at-
neo-nazi-rally-vanguard-america)

[1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/portland-
dou...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/portland-double-
murder-white-supremacist-muslim-hate-speech)

[2]: [https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2017/08/16/did-you-know-four-
ways-d...](https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2017/08/16/did-you-know-four-ways-dhs-
working-prevent-terrorism-home)

~~~
jrs95
[http://www.newsweek.com/police-line-duty-deaths-
increase-201...](http://www.newsweek.com/police-line-duty-deaths-
increase-2017-636064)

And there have been specific instances of BLM activists killing police, this
being the most high profile one:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers)

We also had a Bernie supporter shoot Steve Scalise, and the general social
media response to Rand Paul being assaulted was celebratory and saying he
deserved it for being a Republican.

Seems like the power dynamics doesn't necessarily mean what these people are
saying won't lead to violence. There are certain things which no power
imbalance excuses, and in my opinion this is one of them.

And what happened in Dallas is much more clear cut than what James Fields did
in Charlottesville. He seemed to have snapped after someone hit his car with a
bat. Seems more like road rage to me based on the video. I think they're going
to have a hard time convicting him of 1st degree murder, honestly. Plus, had
the police done their job that entire situation likely would have been
avoided. The violence should not have been allowed to escalate like it was.

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

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

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

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

I think it's emotions.

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

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

~~~
QAPereo
More voices also means more noise, but I think this is a transitional period,
and the noise will find its level again. The value of giving people a
franchise based on what they have to say has to start somehwere, and it’s an
admittedly rough start. I feel like too often the value of the underlying
process is ignored in favor of obsessive complaining sbout reasonable and
expected cultural growing pains.

~~~
marcoperaza
Ah yes, the growing pains of ruining people's lives for having the wrong
opinions. Just reasonable growing pains!

~~~
dang
Would you please do a better job of following the site guidelines? They
include "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what
someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." They also include
"Snark is deprecated".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
marcoperaza
What is a more generous interpretation of what he said? I didn’t misinterpret
it, I used a rhetorical device to unwind his obfuscation of exactly what he
was defending. If you only follow a dry analytic tone, then you deny yourself
an essential tool for disarming sophistic contortions that defend things that
are clearly indefensible when plainly stated.

~~~
marcoperaza
Orwell gives a good example of these kinds of contortions in _Politics and the
English Language_ :

 _‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree
that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an
unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the
Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in
the sphere of concrete achievement.’_

To which the proper response is the ungenerous and sarcastic, "yes, of course
it is right to murder your opponents when it benefits you". Because to engage
otherwise is to give the sophistry more legitimacy than it deserves.

~~~
dang
I'm fond of that essay too. But if you're going to play the Orwell card it's
best to make sure that you're not playing it cheaply, i.e. to justify personal
venting or sophistry of your own. Just because someone else is doing those
things doesn't mean we aren't also.

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

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

I can see how people might have misunderstood.

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

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

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

Am I placing too much faith in reason?

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

~~~
jrs95
That's not the point. The point is that freedom of speech should exist
absolutely regardless. Weakening freedom of speech to attack regressive ideas
still weakens freedom of speech.

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

~~~
markdog12
You pretty much could have just said, "What is the (purpose of / value in)
defending ideas I don't like?" Obviously people may disagree on what you feel
is "regressive".

~~~
perfmode
Since when is regressive defined that way?

If we can’t agree that there exist regressive ideas, what are we even doing
here?

I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t
know what viewpoints I hold. I have withheld these viewpoints from the
discussion precisely because I am trying to establish agreement regarding some
basic, primitive notions.

~~~
markdog12
> If we can’t agree that there exist regressive ideas

And just what are those ideas? I'm guessing not everyone will agree to them.

> I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t
> know what viewpoints I hold.

It doesn't matter. My point is not everyone will agree with your viewpoints.

~~~
perfmode
What is your point?

How do you propose we move forward?

~~~
echaozh
How does the stock market go up? In a straight line? No, it moves up and down,
but mostly up. That's why index funds are better, no?

How do we move forward? Do we go straight ahead? Well, dictatorship is always
moving straight ahead, because they can easily define what is progressive and
what is regressive, by looking at the dictator. If progressiveness and
regressiveness is so easy to define, what do we even need democracy for? Let's
just find the most progressive person and appoint him our president/prime
minister/chariman/king/chieftain, and let him lead us forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Sam, you didn't say that.

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

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

2017, everybody.

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

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

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

------
jwilk
Original post on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093)

~~~
minimaxir
And the counterargument to the original post on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614)

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

~~~
charonn0
How so? Physical violence? Criminal charges?

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

~~~
slededit
That it has become acceptable is seen as a regression of society. We should be
eliminating bullying not debating who the victim should be today.

~~~
Avshalom
you're debating who the victim should be.

I am (via sarcasm) stating that being murdered is worse than being fired and
if Side A's speech ends in firing and Side B's speech end in 11 black people
in in a church being murdered: I'm Side A All-Day-Every-Day.

~~~
slededit
I don't see how I'm debating who the victim should be unless you've mistaken
me for somebody else.

In any case murder vs bully is a false dichotomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
ChuckMcM
I wasn't trying to communicate a sensitivity to anonymous criticism, rather I
was trying to communicate that anonymous criticism only contributes heat and
no progress to a discussion. And then I tried to tie together how that heat
can lead to suppression.

I take it from your response that you disagree with that. I would be
interested in hearing either how you hoped your original comment would
contribute to the discussion or how you think I could have more clearly
articulated my issue with it.

~~~
Mithaldu
But free speech says that you shouldn't suppress ANY speech no matter what it
is, so you shouldn't be trying to suppress QAPereo now.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Are you saying that I shouldn't ask QAPero questions (suppressing my speech)
or are you saying that by asking questions QAPero is being suppressed? How is
that supposed to work.

~~~
Mithaldu
> anonymous criticism only contributes heat and no progress to a discussion

Is a direct attempt at suppression.

I'm saying you're being hypocritical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

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

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

------
zerostar07
smart man goes to china, sees something he likes . comes back and apologizes
for liking it to appease his crowd.

not a very smart man.

