Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe.

The premise is not sound. Not everyone who has a conventionally accepted idea has that idea because the idea is conventionally accepted. It could be, for example, that there is some other cause that leads to me having an idea and that idea being conventionally accepted.

As an obvious example, I don’t think that one plus one equals two because I observe that to be conventionally accepted. I have good reasons to think that’s true even if most people disagreed. And I certainly wouldn’t think anyone who disagrees was being discriminated against for having unconventional ideas.




It sounds like you are interpreting Paul Graham to mean, 'if one of a person's ideas is conventionally accepted, then the source of that opinion is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe'.

I interpreted this to mean, 'if all of a person's ideas are conventionally accepted, then the source of their opinions are whatever it's currently acceptable to believe'.

Part of why I interpreted this passage the way I did was because this builds on Graham earlier post titled 'What You Can't Say':

> 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 what you're told. [1]

[1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html


I think what both of his sentiments are missing is that we should try to shape society such that the good beliefs are also the conventional ones, instead of praising people for having unconventional beliefs for its own sake.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: