Hacker News Reader

Paul Graham grew up in a time when rich middle-aged white men with no relevant experience or credential could spout off about whatever topic they wanted, including pseudo-intellectual racism/misogyny, and everyone would be forced to listen to their nonsense unable to respond with more than an eye-roll for fear of reprisals. (For that matter, when Graham grew up those powerful white dudes could beat people up, sexually assault people, etc. with no consequence.)

Now when they spout similar nonsense, such dudes are publicly criticized, and the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them, to the point that whiny white/male supremacist grievance has now entirely taken over a whole US political party, which is trying to outlaw public criticism of white/male supremacist ideology.

Edit: Disclaimer to satisfy rayiner: I am a 6'2" married 36-year-old straight white male homeowner with 2 kids and a car.

Edit #2: Folks may enjoy https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...

> the criticism deeply shocks and distresses them

This is a really good point. It's frustrating, though predictable, to see people arguing about the precise threshold of "harm" to which speech should be held in the comments here when the harm done to most people Graham seems to be defending amounts to "someone was mean to me on the Internet."

And - yeah! That sucks! People being mean to you on the internet sucks. But until people like this are defending every target of KF/ED/4chan/etc hate mobs just as vehemently, I'm not really interested in treating them like they're neutral, rational parties.

This is a pretty shocking fairytale version of the past.

I don't think you lived in the past. Racist jokes were told by teachers in school to their class. Minorities in work environments would be told racist jokes by white dudes to their face and they had to laugh at them or be fired. White dudes could basically say whatever they want, as long as it wasn't about another white dude (or their families). The past was probably more shocking than you realize it was.

I am a 35 year old straight married white male homeowner and businessowner who identifies as reasonably right-wing and I endorse this comment.

> a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights

If this is intended to refer to the United States, it is highly exaggerated. I doubt you could find a woman, disabled person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America. The normalization of rights and tolerance for these groups has been so total and swift that it can be hard to to put things in perspective and imagine what life was like in the relatively recent past.

> I doubt you could find a woman, disable person, or LGBTQ+ person who seriously would rather spend their life in 1970s America than 2020s America.

That's not what I meant and, I think, not what I said. I did not say that we _had_ rolled back those rights, but that we were in the _process_ of doing so. Rather than moving in the direction of liberation for these groups, we are moving in the opposite direction, at least in some places, and more relevantly for this discussion, that politics of oppression is normative in the right-wing party here. Graham's essay is explicitly aimed at the left, yet effectively elucidates the precise tactics and goals of the right.

"In the process of reversing much of..." does not mean that things are worse than in the 70s. It means that things are being undone.

The right to abortion has been threatened more now than in the past many decades, for example.

Great points. I would also highlight the following:

> 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. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does.

I would offer the analogy of a broken (analog) clock. If a broken clock says the time is ten o’clock, and the time actually is ten o’clock, it is more important to note that the clock is broken than that the clock is correct. Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct.

Critics of 'intolerance'/'cancel culture'/'heresy' often invoke truth in their arguments. They miss that the phenomenon has nothing to do with the truth of an out-of-context statement, rather it is about whether a person should be trusted.

> Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct.

This is a great analogy, but I'd go even further than this; someone can say something which is true, but in context use it to signal harmful intent. Saying "you know, that last commit from Jane was awful" while venting about bad process over lunch with a good friend is very different than saying "the last code Jane committed was awful" in a meeting about hiring the team's second female employee - even if it's absolutely true.

Agreed. I was just imagining people posting publicly on social media, but good to say that situational context/audience also matters a ton when understanding a given statement. There is often much unspoken nuance/implications.

Thank you - I was familiar with 'a broken clock is right twice a day', but hadn't considered the analogy with prejudiced statements before. Useful

> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right

Good point! The "problem" is often framed that society is full of adult-babies who can't be disagreed with without dire consequence. But is it at all possible that it's just the case that in recent years people have just felt more empowered to tout anti-social ideas which are worthy of scorn in the first place? There's quite a bit of evidence for the latter (January 6, Charlottesville, Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers).

> I'm curious how Mr. Graham can look at a country that is in the process of reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right

I see the former (and maybe the latter, I honestly don't pay too much attention), but my interpretation is that a major culprit for any reversals in rights is the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance (which we had essentially achieved) to ridiculous "you're actively protesting with us or your against us" proportions that have caused the pushback.

Just to add, in principle I'm against

> anti-"critical race theory" laws and "don't say gay" laws

even if they are mischaracterized to a large extent. But I see them as the latest escalation in response to provocation from the left. They were not written in a vacuum.

> the far left, who have upped demands from reasonable tolerance [...] to ridiculous [...] proportions that have caused the pushback.

This is the equivalent of the schoolyard bully saying "I wouldn't have hit him if he hadn't asked for his lunch money back."

I don't really want to debate you in analogy space, but what I said was equivalent to "the bully already gave you your lunch money back, but you're not happy with that anymore and stand there continuing to taunt him and asking for more money (or to acknowledge his priviledge or something)."

My comment was giving my perception, anyway, I'm not trying to persuade.

PG's essays have smug 'fleeting above it all' tone. He gives the impression that he is not talking about himself or his in-group. There is kind of unsaid hint.

More than 1,500 books have been banned in public schools, and a U.S. House panel asks why https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/04/09/more-than-1500-books...

I think that Mr.Graham is not talking about rights and progress.

curl -sb -H "http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html" | grep "right" one will be the last.<br><br>There are aggressively conventional-minded people on both the right come from the left. The next one might come from the right. Imagine when, like the medieval church, they say "Damn right we're banning

`grep` is not the solution to every problem, friend. Not using exactly the same words does not mean we are not discussing the same topic.

I have nothing to add. Thank you.

> reversing much of the last half-century's progress on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and disability rights, and _not_ see a politics of heresy emerging from the right.

Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders.

Attempting to argue that the battles being fought today—fighting laws regulating private conduct in bedrooms versus teaching third graders about sexuality—is disingenuous. So is overlooking that the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester.

> The best way to make sure people are not fired for speech is not to make it unacceptable for minorities to argue vehemently with their oppressors;

Oh please. Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement. Elizabeth Warren’s voters in the Democratic Primary were about as white as Donald Trump’s (85%).

> how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections

More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1]

> the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe)

I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN. [2]

1: https://www.educationviews.org/clarence-thomas-signals-willi...

2: https://www.wlbt.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-l...

> More recently, the court seems to be looking to overturn Obergefell. [1]

This is a complete misreading of that opinion. Note that both Thomas and Alito concurred in the denial of cert. They said nothing of overturning Obergefell, but criticized the process by which it was done—by judicial fiat rather than legislation. Specifically, this meant that the legislature had no ability to consider and address religious objections.

Thomas and Alito’s opinion not only didn’t call for Obergefell to be overturned, but are completely mainstream compared to other developed counties. The year after Obergefell, the EU Court of Human Rights ruled that the express right to marriage contained in the European Convention on Human Rights did not cover same sex marriage. EU countries all enacted same sex marriage through legislation—and they included various protections for religious liberty—exactly the process that Alito and Thomas said should have been followed. Switzerland only legalized it last year, and it’s still not legal in Italy.

> the current flash point on “women's rights” (Roe)

I was referring to the proposed reinstatement of child marriage in TN.

Meanwhile Colorado just legalized killing babies right up until birth.

> Meanwhile Colorado just legalized killing babies right up until birth.

Woah, really? Let's see... https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/politics/colorado-abortion-ri...

> The governor emphasized that the new law "does not make any changes to the current legal framework," saying: "This bill simply maintains this status quo regardless of what happens at the federal level and preserves all existing constitutional rights and obligations."

That’s not actually what the law does though. It says:

> A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE

There is no limitation to viability. The defenses I’ve seen of the law (e.g. Politifact’s) mistakenly assume that Roe makes it impermissible to abort fetuses in the third trimester, which is incorrect.

The GOP's national platform still says that they intend to overturn Obergefell. Laws that explicitly target the LGBT community (both gay and trans people) are being passed in numerous states, which are uniformly red states. And it isn't hard to see a partisan split in the Supreme Court on the topic of gay rights, even if individual Republican-appointed justices have been on the right side of several cases.

> Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders.

Sure, Obergefell and Bostock were good, but op was talking about the country, not just SCOTUS. You can't ignore things like bathroom/locker room bills, the Don't Say Gay bill, book banning, etc. You're narrowing to things that support your position.

> (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester.

This is a right-wing talking point that (predictably) ignores the facts, narrowing to data that supports their position. It's very hard to poll about abortion because it's so nuanced, and most Americans are really uninformed. Couple of things here:

If you look at Gallup's results (the poll Town Hall et al reference) [0], you'll even see majority support for abortion in the third trimester. 75% of respondents believe abortion should be legal when the woman's life is endangered, and 52% when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. You'll also see that 56% of respondents oppose an 18 week ban, which is well into the 2nd trimester.

The reason the right centers on the "second trimester" talking point is that a different question shows way lower support (65% think it should be illegal), but when they drill down, support in various scenarios (life of the mother, etc.) increases. This is similar to polling about the ACA: if you asked people about Obamacare they hated it; if you asked them about the policies in Obamacare (no lifetime caps on care, no preexisting conditions) they loved it. It's an old, disingenuous trick.

> Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement.

This is super untrue, but it's not that surprising since you're using Warren's primary campaign which, again, is a very narrow measure that supports your position (the demographics of the states she competed in are "overwhelmingly white" [1], so what you said applies to every candidate until Super Tuesday). The quick rejoinder is "then explain BLM", but something more substantial is the demographic breakdown of the Democratic vote in the 2020 Presidential election [2]. Quick synopsis is Biden/Harris won:

- 63% of Hispanic and Latino voters

- 87% of Black voters

- 68% AAPI voters

- 65% of Indian American voters

- 68% of American Indian and Alaska Native voters

- 43% of White voters (38% men, 44% women)

Maybe you'll quibble on Biden/Harris not being a progressive campaign? We can look at the last Quinnipiac poll from before the Iowa Caucuses [2] where Sanders' and Warren's non-white supporters made up 41% of their vote shares. Sure they don't match Biden's 70%, but they're decidedly not "overwhelmingly white" (might want to look at the Buttigieg campaign for that one).

[0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/31/just-ho...

[2]: https://poll.qu.edu/Poll-Release-Legacy?releaseid=3651

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

The right focuses on the second trimester issue because Roe mandates the availability of elective second trimester abortions, which people oppose. And the left demonizes Republican abortion laws like the one in Mississippi which contains exceptions for health of the mother and the baby. Your polls only confirm that where public opinion lies is something close to the Mississippi law (which incidentally isn’t dissimilar from the law in France or Germany).

As to your other point, you can’t use support for Democrats as a proxy for support for “social progressives.” My parents vote straight ticket democrat, but they’re not the least bit socially progressive. I’m not talking about democrats who support DACA. I’m talking about the ones who say “LatinX.” These are the ones driving the ideological rigidity PG is talking about. These folks are overwhelmingly white: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ (“progressive activists” are 79% white, the same as “traditional conservatives”).

You have to appreciate that white people vote Democrat for different reasons than POC. Matt Yglesias has written about this at length. For example, Muslim Americans supported Bush in 2000. Post 9/11, Iraq and the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right pushed many to Democrats. But Muslim Americans are still very conservative within their own communities: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres.... Additionally, many are alienated by the right not because it’s religious, but because it’s Christian specifically. Thus they may support democrats out of support for pluralism, not because they agree with Beto that we should strip tax exemptions from Catholic churches and mosques. Indeed, one of the starkest differences between white and non-white democrats is that white democrats overwhelmingly believe that religion isn’t necessary for morality, while about half of non-white democrats believe it is: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo...

The right focuses on Warren’s primary run because it allows them to disentangle the “we like Obamacare Democrats” like my parents, from the socially progressive intersectional democrats like Warren. Indeed, even Sanders is a bad point of comparison because remember the Warren progressives attacked him as “racist and sexist.” Sanders is popular among Hispanics because social democracy is a broad lane among Hispanics.

And Warren shows just how unpopular “socialism plus intersectionality” is with POC. You cite the Iowa Caucus, but 91% of democrat Iowa caucus voters are white. The POC there are basically all college students. I don’t know why you didn’t cite the Super Tuesday results, which is when the diverse parts of the Democratic Party actually vote. Warren got crushed among POC. Among Black people in Virginia, for example, she got 7%, losing to Bloomberg: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/super-tuesday-14-states.... Among Hispanics in Texas she got 8%. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-boosted-sanders-...

All told, Warren’s support in Super Tuesday was 80% white, in an electorate that was only 50% white. Warren was, in fact, never even a viable candidate in a diverse Democratic Party: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-boo.... We were subjected to her for a year because she’s incredibly popular among the highly educated white people who run the media and everything else. It hasn’t been lost on me, as a person of color, how many of the loudest voices talking about race over the last year in elite circles were both white and Warren supporters.

There’s other data points too, such as Eric Adams winning Blacks and Latinos in the NYC primaries, and Yang winning Asians, while white progressives decried both.

"Indeed, one of the starkest differences between white and non-white democrats is that white democrats overwhelmingly believe that religion isn’t necessary for morality, while about half of non-white democrats believe it is"

I generally find white left wingers so hard to love because of the complexes and attitudes commonly connected to this sentiment. I try to forgive them for what I can't unsee as progressively dehumanizing everyone and everything in the spheres I have little choice but to inhabit, even though they give us no such quarter. The thing that pulls me out of anger at that tribe is sadness, when I think that probably (driven by forces that increase published statistical likelihoods) at least one atheist/left-winger I've read a mean comment or message from has killed themselves and is no more. If I feel they are dehumanizing, the correct reaction is to rehumanize.

Sorry, kind of in a rush here.

> The right focuses on the second trimester issue because Roe mandates the availability of elective second trimester abortions, which people oppose.

Casey tossed out Roe and with it the trimester framework. The right focuses on the 2nd trimester because it polls in their favor.

> "social progressives"

I don't really think this term is super useful (is it pro-reproductive rights, pro-trans rights, what?), but stipulating that it is, I get what you're saying. There's a diversity of political views in the US, practically none are coherent and many are surprising (some Black Americans think things were better under slavery, if you can believe it). I believe they're all valid though, hard as they are to reconcile.

> Warren

My main argument here is that votes for the Warren campaign aren't a good measure of support, for all the reasons the Democratic primary process is a dumpster fire. You can dig into polls and I can throw process at you, but if you want to look at support for progressive issues across demographics, that's what polls are for. Dunno why you have an axe to grind w/ her.

> There’s other data points too, such as Eric Adams winning Blacks and Latinos in the NYC primaries, and Yang winning Asians, while white progressives decried both.

Descriptive representation matters a lot, especially in down ballot races.

---

My point with all the social progressive stuff is that it's poorly defined, and support is hard to poll across demos and issues. Which is why I reached for broad, inarguable measures like people who supported Biden/Harris, and also dug into specific questions in the Gallup poll. But you can be more granular, like how can you look at Sanders' support amongst Latinos and non-college White men and not think support for social progressivism is anything but diverse?

> "ideological rigidity"

This one drives me nuts. When the 40 people in the extremely online wing of the Democratic party display ideological rigidity, someone's Twitter mentions blow up. When the State legislature of Texas displays ideological rigidity, they effectively ban abortion and curb reproductive health access for millions of women. Are there probably weird cases of some super progressive losing it and crossing the line? Sure. None of it measures up to what State legislatures are doing.