Probably largely the same everybody else is holding.
Paul Graham is somewhat a victim of this himself.
For example, the assumption behind this very essay is that there is such a thing as a rigid, singular concept of "truth" in the moral, cultural and political sphere, that there is a "fact of the matter" whether a belief (say one PG holds) is correct or not. Or that that we live in a static world where such truths can even exist, and not, in a fluid, dynamic, politically messy world where contrasting viewpoints interact and produce something not something ever lasting, but something which is fragile and must always be fought for, this fight being a necessary feature for a functioning democracy.
It seems to me that the biggest reason why some opinions are taboo is that we're worried (usually for good reason) they'll find supporters. Instead of making opinions taboo, we should work on an educational system that doesn't let harmful opinions take hold of people.
There will always be taboo opinions. For example, I can't imagine a civilized society where an opinion like "capital punishment for every minor fault is ok" is not taboo.
> Instead of making opinions taboo, we should work on an educational system that doesn't let harmful opinions take hold of people.
How? I think the problem is that this is impossible at all. Not every opinion is based on reason and education will not be a shield from them.
This one isn't. Here, I can say "there should be capital punishment for every minor fault!" and nobody will bat an eyelid. Nobody will agree, which is why it's okay to say this.
"Taboo" means "opinions you can't talk about", not "opinions that won't be popular". Many taboo opinions are extremely popular, such as "homosexuality shouldn't be a crime" a few decades ago.
Hell, I spent a full thirty seconds wondering whether I should even post the latter under my name, even if it's clearly in a hypothetical context and I'm just mentioning it as an example.
I don't think that assumption is required by the essay. It says that people with orthodox privilege believe that anything outside their orthodoxy must be untrue. So it merely claims that certain people believe (often falsely) that they can conclude something is untrue because it's unorthodox. A crisp universal definition of truth isn't necessary for them to believe this.
"They literally can't imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble." would be replaced by "They literally cannot image a statement which is morally acceptable to certain groups of people (to which they belong) would get them in trouble with those groups of people". Which is completely fair and reasonable.