Things we can't say [article]

echomadman

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Very good read on conformist thought and the reaction of the "mob" to new concepts.

Sarky

Ooh, very good. Certainly made me stop and think about myself and my opinions. Good work, that man.

Syth

Yes good link. Everyone should read this.
Really makes you think.

simu

Non-conformism and critical thought - sadly lacking in this country, I fear. Read this!

monument

Stopped reading it about half way down - nothing much new for me.

Did it say any more then the last line in my sig?

sanvean

Interesting article, but deeply flawed in many ways. Surely, by his argument, you could argue that slavery - which has been in existence since records began - or rather attitudes against the idea of slavery, are relatively new and therefore suspect. also, see: women's rights, equal status for homosexuals, democracy etc etc. I too stopped reading halfway down, so ignore my comments if he addresses them.

simu

Surely, by his argument, you could argue that slavery - which has been in existence since records began - or rather attitudes against the idea of slavery, are relatively new and therefore suspect. also, see: women's rights, equal status for homosexuals, democracy etc etc

Well, you could think critically about these ideas and decide they have have a positive effect overall. The main gist is not to take anything for granted.

chill

An interesting article that made me think - especially as I have been banned indefinitely from Boards.ie/Politics due to my robust pro war-against-Saddam stance while the current clique in control of the forum are almost hysterically anti-Bush and anti american administration.

To support anything Bush does seems now to be the big taboo, and could easily be the perfect example for Graham's study.

monument

Originally posted by chill
To support anything Bush does seems now to be the big taboo, and could easily be the perfect example for Graham's study.

:rolleyes:

sanvean

Originally posted by chill
An interesting article that made me think - especially as I have been banned indefinitely from Boards.ie/Politics due to my robust pro war-against-Saddam stance while the current clique in control of the forum are almost hysterically anti-Bush and anti american administration.

Originally posted by Gandalf
Chill is banned for trolling. I asked him to provide facts or links to stories backing up his position and he responded with ignorance.

There are numerous people posting who would be considered pro-bush, just take a look at the thread which resulted in your ban. as was stated by Gandalf, you were banned because of trolling. there is, unfortunately, no conspiracy.

And I accept that the central argument re Things we Can't Say is basically to be on your guard, but it does essentially lead to a denial of progression re rights and general human advancement.

chill

Originally posted by sanvean
There are numerous people posting who would be considered pro-bush, just take a look at the thread which resulted in your ban.

Which is totally untrue. Those who were sympathetic to Bush's policy in Iraq were increasingly cowed and reluctant to post, especially after my banning, except in the safety of PMs to me.

as was stated by Gandalf, you were banned because of trolling. there is, unfortunately, no conspiracy.

A convenient fabrication to excuse my banning. Especially as I was the butt of extensive raw abuse while no one else was banned. I am even banned from READING the forum...for one reason and one reason only - I stood up to the Bush haters and dared expose the fabricated evidence that was used in posts to attack the war. A fatal mistake in the current claimet hereabouts.

And I accept that the central argument re Things we Can't Say is basically to be on your guard, but it does essentially lead to a denial of progression re rights and general human advancement.

Actually I personally don't challenge a forum's right to deny access.

Graham's article however brings into sharp focus how this kind of power can be abused to suit passing fashions of small cliques who habitually use peripheral issues as an excuse to limit dissent of this 'fashion'.

Sand

A convenient fabrication to excuse my banning. Especially as I was the butt of extensive raw abuse while no one else was banned. I am even banned from READING the forum...for one reason and one reason only - I stood up to the Bush haters and dared expose the fabricated evidence that was used in posts to attack the war. A fatal mistake in the current claimet hereabouts.

No its not. Ive got into lengthy and sometimes heated debate/argument about that very issue and Ive never been banned. To be honest - and Im not trying to provoke you - I wasnt saddened to see you banned as you discredit the argument in favour of the Iraq war by your style of debate, and you did your best to drag a thread of mine way way off topic . Yes, you got a little less leeway than people who post utter tripe about Bush and co do but there is absolutely no problem with posting in favour of the Iraq war - just try not to give an exscuse for banning by going OTT.

And I accept that the central argument re Things we Can't Say is basically to be on your guard, but it does essentially lead to a denial of progression re rights and general human advancement.

I recently read Toby Youngs book "How to lose Friends and Alienate People" (funny book btw ) and in a serious part he touched upon the way political correctness and the logic of democracy was crushing debate/dissent in the USA and actually leading to tyranny by the majority. The logic of democracy is that when the majority have decided on an issue then it is the correct decision and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong, and indeed there are many taboo subjects where to even go against the accepted dogma can end careers, he gave the example of a historian lecturer at Harvard, Stephan Thernstrom, who was forced to quit giving his lecture on the peopleing of america, after he was branded as racially insensitive. His sin? He refered to the aboriginal population of America as "indians" rather than "native americans".

The result of this sort of political correctness is herd behaviour where independant thought is discouraged for fear of being branded. Whether it is communist, racist, homophobe, sexist, fascist, unamerican, imperialist, Republican, etc etc the witch hunt can be just as bad. Tyranny is resisted by independant thought, by people thinking outside the accepted, publicly approved box. When people are afraid to speak out then you end up with people who dont think for themselves, who dont know why they believe affirmitive action ( for example) is a good idea, but know that those who disagree with it are racist, even unconciously - and they dont want to be racist. You get a nation of people who believe what theyre told by authority figures because theyre afraid to think for themselves. A nation of followers rather than citizens.

Young himself complained that there was very little intellectual diversity at Harvard when he was there - people were too afraid to stand out. He didnt/doesnt believe that the supposed "best and brightest" of the U.S. (and abroad tbh ) had the neccessary intellectual courage to think for themselves and stand up in the face of the herd.

We have it in Ireland too - I remeber when I was in college and the local socialist protestors union went ballistic because David Irving was in Cork I think giving a speech. Their plan wasnt to point out the flaws in Irvings thesis - rather it was to intefere with his right to free speech and attempt a type of censorship upon him. Who knows, maybe they couldnt understand why Irving was wrong but had learned off by heart that he was a fascist - and the best way to deal with fascists is to burn books before they do.

As it turns out Irving was more effectively dealt with in court when he was challenged to prove his thesis and failed - all the socialist/fascists did by trying to silence him was give him some undeserved credibility. Its a worrying sign though of herd mentality being favoured over actually thinking for yourself and being able to engage and criticise anothers viewpoint. If the likes of the socialist protestor unions are out there policing who can say what and where, whose policing them? It is a form of tyranny.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
The logic of democracy is that when the majority have decided on an issue then it is the correct decision and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong, and indeed there are many taboo subjects where to even go against the accepted dogma can end careers,

Well made point. However I notice that in this post, your defence of free trade and neoliberalism, current capitalist dogma, consists of telling people to "evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists". Why? Because you believe the majority of economists are going to be correct and criticisms by a minority of economists can be ignored?

The result of this sort of political correctness is herd behaviour where independant thought is discouraged for fear of being branded.

You said it.

As for David Irving, he's not a liar, he's an "independent thinker" isn't he?

Sand

Well made point. However I notice that in this post, your defence of free trade and neoliberalism, current capitalist dogma, consists of telling people to "evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists". Why? Because you believe the majority of economists are going to be correct and criticisms by a minority of economists can be ignored?

My full advice was to....

" Buy a textbook, evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists, read up on empirical data - that Legrain chap has a article on the exact subject on his webby handily enough. "

Buy a textbook so you can understand the technical terms and theories.

Evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists by reading their papers and seeing what common themes come out of their studies.

Compare that to the empirical data to see how it works in the real world historically.

In short, read up on it yourself and make your own choice as to what you believe. I believe that people who do the above can only come to the conclusion that free trade is good for the economy. I can argue for free trade, Ive no problem with people making statements that I view as being incorrect or wrong. I dont have to avoid the debate by namecalling.

Thats not an example of "things that are not okay to say". A thing that would not be okay to say today might be that .... the rising of 1916 was a murderous insurrection without the support of the Irish which led to widespread loss of life and suffering for people who saw themselves as loyal subjects of the crown. That in the war of independance the IRA cowardly murdered law enforcement officers and murdered decent law abiding citizens who reported their crimes to the law of the land. Try saying that in some bars without getting a smack. Try saying it at a Sinn Fein gathering or even at the FF commemorations.

You said it.

As for David Irving, he's not a liar, he's an "independent thinker" isn't he?

He probably believes hes right in what he claims, and thankfully thought crimes have yet to be codified though they are developing unspoken guidelines as mentioned in the article. A five year old child could poke holes in his arguments though - and youve got to be able to defend your viewpoints with more than "It just is".

sanvean

my problem isn't with the idea of questioning ideas, and being allowed to do so, more to do with his central thesis which rests on the importance of tradition above and beyond anything else. therefore, if an idea has been accepted as the norm for thousands of years, it is inherently correct. this elevation of tradition is, in my opinion, something akin to what he's arguing against. amongst its many problems, it disregards that some 'traditions' aren't really tradition at all: but rather the opinions of a couple of self-serving people. for example, much of our moral code is based on the bible, which can be traced to a group of priests who enforced their ideal in order to further their own interests (by destroying competition from others). now these moral codes are the basis for something like 3 billion people.

and so forth.

echomadman

I too stopped reading halfway down, so ignore my comments if he addresses them.

Have you read the rest of it yet? Making critical analysis without RTFA is more of a slashdot kind of thing to do isnt it?
I'm not saying your points are invalid btw, or trying to start a flamewar. but how can you offer opinion based on incomplete information.

dr_manhattan

just as far as this quote goes:

"Nerds are always getting in trouble. They say improper things for the same reason they dress unfashionably and have good ideas: convention has less hold over them."

this seems a very self congratulatory statement. Forgive me for assuming someone who posts online has an at least passing affiliation with nerds. I could suggest a million reasons why nerds dress unfashionably, I could debate the specific value of "nerd ideas" having heard a whole lot of ****e ones in my time, and finally... convention has less hold over nerds?

Nerds? the most repressed social species we have?

that's like saying convention has less hold over bikers: and anyone who reads that and goes "hell yeah!" must have never hung out with bikers ;-)

And as for finishing the aricle, I'm really sorry, but that was one hell of a longwinded, digressive and boring piece of writing - as this guy seems to be proud of internet publishing as a role, he should perhaps hire himself an internet editor ;-)

not to say what he says isn't completely valid, it's just kinda obvious, or at least up until about three quarters the way through it is - forgive me if it waxes visionary later ;-)

later folks.

sanvean

Originally posted by echomadman
Have you read the rest of it yet? Making critical analysis without RTFA is more of a slashdot kind of thing to do isnt it?
I'm not saying your points are invalid btw, or trying to start a flamewar. but how can you offer opinion based on incomplete information.

I take your point, but as has already been said, the article was extremely long winded, and didn't seem to really advance or progress on the central point.

also, we all make our minds up on insuficient evidence, at least to a large extent (ie, leaving aside writers of scholarly work or post-graduate theses, etc).

chill

Originally posted by Sand
To be honest - and Im not trying to provoke you - I wasnt saddened to see you banned as you discredit the argument in favour of the Iraq war by your style of debate, and you did your best to drag a thread of mine way way off topic

I would point out why this is simply not true and offer an example of my posts and the responses I got, but I am unable even to read Politics to use as a reference as I appear to have been permamently banned.
My 'style' was direct and made the rabid anti bush posters uncomfortable; I had numerous personally abusive posts aimed at me; I never attacked anyone personally; please don't try to imply that the sin of going off topic is anything other than rampant on all boards at all times However I can't support my statements because I am not allowed to access Politics. What a wonderful debating place this is.....

amp

Originally posted by chill
please don't try to imply that the sin of going off topic is anything other than rampant on all boards at all times

Really? We're fairly strict on it here. Howabout we get back on topic. Which, ironically enough, is about "Things we can't say".

However I can't support my statements because I am not allowed to access Politics. What a wonderful debating place this is.....

You were banned from Politics? Well if you go off-topic again in this thread you won't have access to Humanities either.

Keep the observations on posting style elsewhere. Back on topic.

chill

Originally posted by amp
[/b]
You were banned from Politics? Well if you go off-topic again in this thread you won't have access to Humanities either.

Keep the observations on posting style elsewhere. Back on topic.

But what could be more on topic than referring to an inability to post specific views ? Isn't this thread all about "things we can't say" ?

Please explain to me how discussion of such issues are not the very essence of the post that started this thread ? How can I possibly be off topic ?

KlodaX

thank you .. that was a most enjoyable read .. reminds me not to worry that my ideas and opinions ...

might be treated as jokes, or at worst as evidence of insanity

Faust

Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot.

Remember this statement people! And take it into account when you're replying to posts on boards.ie meh says!

amp

Wow, you'll all be amazed to know that chill has been banned from Humanities for a week. What a wonderful debating place this is indeed.

Back on topic.

chill

Originally posted by amp
Wow, you'll all be amazed to know that chill has been banned from Humanities for a week. What a wonderful debating place this is indeed.

Back on topic.

Amazing... I was banned for discussing "what we can't say" in a thread called "what we can't say". What a wonderful debating place this is indeed... as long as we keep to the establishment line...

I'd be fascinated to hear exactly how the above post is on topic for this thread ?

amp

Fine, you're permanently banned now.