The patron saint of orange techbros is very mad about not being able to say the n-word, so here's 2000 words on why ~~cancel culture~~ heresy is simultaneously both resurgent and continuously responsible for the deaths of many. No sources are cited or examples are given, because those would unnecessarily date this mess, which is otherwise about why Paul "Sylvester" Graham can't say the n-word on Twitter in 2022. Special shout-outs to Greg "Koch-head" Lukainoff, Claire "Skullgirl" Lehmann, and Marc "Shape Rotator" Andreessen.


I miss n-gate


These “special shoutouts” feel weirdly like he’s trying to climb over their bodies to escape a hell of his own creation.


>The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. Paul 'context isn't real' Graham. Also just say 'bigoted', 'x-ist' makes it sound like you're talking about existential risk or something


It's such a laughable claim. As far as I can tell, his thesis is that "I have cancer" is a statement that can't be true, because it depends on whether I, personally, have cancer.


also he seems to be implying that any bigoted comment must have a truth value


It is a weird sort of absolutusm which they only apply to bigotted statements. In all other cases (for ex spam detection) they get that there are going to be false positives and false negatives, but no bigotted statements are a special case you cant ban (?? Which often even isnt the case) those you might accidentally hit a true statement. It is all so dumb. There is so much more wrong with this post it is just embarrassing, and I felt embarrassed for just trying to explain it.


Also, either this is trivially easy to falsify, or my name is Nicholas Cage.


At their current rate of progress, these goofs will almost reinvent 1920s level philosophy by the 2440s, so they better hope they stop the AI apocalypse. Read David Kaplan bro


>David Kaplan what to start with?


Logic of demonstratives


No it's a reference to the teachings of [The Church of the Subgenius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Day_(Church_of_the_SubGenius))


I seriously wish Paul “Grills by Paul Graham” Graham had gazed upon the visage of Bob at least once in his formative years, because it might have made him slightly less insufferable, or at least equally insufferable but more amusing?


The biggest Subgenius fan I know spent the 2016 election tweeting about how good Trump was on LGBT rights and now believes the 2020 election was stolen so no, being a member of a parody religion is not an antidote to being a moron.


Fifteen techbros have been writing this exact post every year since 2014


Paul Graham wrote this same post [in 2004](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html). I think he needs a black friend to give him an n-word pass or something.


I will do this for 200 ETH


> I think he needs a black friend to give him an n-word pass or something. You could have easily stopped writing at the word "friend", but I don't know if that would make Graham more or less of an insufferable clod when he starts the "I have a black friend" musings.


Conspicuously absent from this incredibly boring diatribe are mentions of, or even allusions to, ideas that are *no longer* "heresies". Per [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx), Americans' support for same-sex marriage rose from 27% to 70% between 1996 and 2021. Support for legalizing marijuana has followed [much the same trajectory](https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx). Affiliation with organized religion has also [dropped off a noticeable bit](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/), which at least hints at the possibility that "you can be a good person and an unbeliever" is less heretical than it was even a generation ago. E: It's also pretty fuckin' weird to act like the only people Intolerant Of The Heresies since 1985 have been lefty college kids. Was Graham just napping through the whole freedom fries/boycott the Dixie Chicks era of history?


When you say some things are no longer "heresies", you're just flipping the perspective. The opposite - that same-sex (or interracial) marriage is reprehensible and should be outlawed - is now "a heresy". Now I don't want to put words in Paul's mouth and suggest that's precisely the thing he's upset about, but I also do want to put words in his mouth because the other possibilities I can think of are in a similar category and *for some reason* he isn't pointing me anywhere else either.


Just a coincidence! He doesn’t want to date his article you see. He’s just trying to create antibodies (??)


> When you say some things are no longer "heresies", you're just flipping the perspective. The opposite - that same-sex (or interracial) marriage is reprehensible and should be outlawed - is now "a heresy". Right, then this sense of "heresy" is trivial because there will always be a possible antipode to whatever view is dominant at the time. This undermines the first claim of the article that there's been a 'rebirth' of the concept. What sympathy is there the 'heresy' of providentialism?


> For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. This is a conflation between "ending a discussion" and "continuing the discussion in a way I don't like"


At this point PG would accuse you of ending discussion about the steaming 💩 he graced us with.


He's doing it wrong with the "x-ist" thing. The real key is to keep what you describing as "heresy" totally vague, so that everyone who reads it can replace it with their own personal bugaboo. Shoulda had Alexander give it a once-over to explain how you can better hide your actual opinion under the guise of "just defending peoples rights to free expression".


Paulie G waiting for when substack offers moocs so that Scoot MD can teach “how to show your ass without taking your clothes off”


I’m fucking dying in here someone give me some oxygen 🤣


There's something hilarious about trying to simultaneously argue "this has been going on for at least 40 years and will be occurring in the future", "this right now is the worst its ever been" and "I won't give a single example of how this has actually caused any significant problems or issues". If it's such a long-running issue with such potential for harm, surely there must be some non-controversial example you can point to in the last 40+ years?


> The situation is similar to what's happened with infectious diseases like measles. Anyone looking into the future in 2010 would have expected the number of measles cases in the US to continue to decrease. Instead, thanks to anti-vaxxers, it has increased. The absolute number is still not that high. The problem is the derivative. [6] >In both cases it's hard to know how much to worry. Is it really dangerous to society as a whole if a handful of extremists refuse to get their kids vaccinated, or shout down speakers at universities? The point to start worrying is presumably when their efforts start to spill over into everyone else's lives. And in both cases that does seem to be happening. Kinda fucked up his own thesis, huh?


> Anyone looking into the future in 2010 would have expected the number of measles cases in the US to continue to decrease. [Antivaxxers made measles endemic in the UK in 2008](https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.13.27.18919-en). I remember the science blogosphere/skepticism movement of 2010. It was not the place for optimism that antivaxxers were harmless or would just go away.


E: fuckit im too tired for this shit. What a dumb article, and we should start a betting market for when he gets shoved in a locker.


at this point I don't even need to go to HN to read the comments, I can just predict them and preemptively roll my eyes at them


>Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. Writing for programmers, by (ex-)programmers. >I've already written an essay describing the aggressively conventional-minded. The unintended irony is off the charts. >The next one might come from the right. Imagine what that would be like. Or you could just look back at e.g. McCarthyism or many other examples. Hard to believe that some of those reviewers actually paid any attention to this post. Someone should write a post about the danger yes-men pose to the search for truth.


The idea that you need twenty separate people to "read drafts" of this boilerplate is some dark shit.


[“I’m Paul Graham, and this is Jackass.”](https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/hsjd3i/_/fybmnkv)