Convopage
See the entire conversation
So @sama has articulated the way many guys in Silicon Valley feel about "free speech". It's not a very sophisticated or informed view, but it's pretty common and he's influential, so it's worth identifying why it's dangerous and wrong.
E Pur Si Muove
Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel...
blog.samaltman.com
608 replies and sub-replies as of Sep 06 2019
[CN: violent anti-semitism] If you don't understand the way Altman's naivety is dangerous, read about how today's Nazis want to exploit exactly this naivety to gain recruits & push for genocide. huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-st…
So this is an interesting clarification from @sama, as these things go. I think it actually changes the argument in substance (not clarification so much as revision) but if we take it in good faith, it’s not wrong, just not saying much. blog.samaltman.com/a-clarification But…
A Clarification
I made a point in this post inelegantly in a way that was easy to misunderstand, so I’d like to clarify it. I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so...
blog.samaltman.com
The key issue we have to face here (one I’ve screwed up myself through painful experience) is that speech and funding are *very* different things. “Enabling speech I disagree with” has completely different implications from “funding those who can cause harm”.
Remember when the NC GOP office caught on fire & people on the left said “I disagree with them, but I don’t approve of violence/arson to silence them”. (Assuming that is what happened.) I was one of these & thought, at first, “I’ll donate to help them rebuild!” But I was wrong.
The key thing here is that money is fungible. NC GOP would take people’s money & use it to (e.g.) deprive trans people of their rights. We know that hateful people won’t use money for speech, they’ll use it to oppress.
After listening, it's clear I conflated personal empathy for victims of violence w/ institutional support for @NCGOP denying others rights.
It was an embarrassing lesson to learn, and one for which I deservedly took some lumps. A few people still (fairly) dont have anybuse for me today because I got it wrong. But I’m glad I learned before more of today’s hate groups learned to exploit this impulse.
Many of us want to feel good about how open minded we are, and demonstrate it by giving time, space & money to people who will use it to deny others their rights. We’re only able to do so if we remain isolated from their victims.
Finally, people with money should understand its power. Funding is not equivalent to enabling speech, it’s a transfer of power. A venture capitalist should not conflate issues of self expression and free speech with arguments about who deserves funding. The stakes are too high.
I'd agree with you but... Where you expecting something different from someone who supported Thiel because "other voices should be heard" even when funding an attack to Gawker?
And I mean I agree with you... but you should know better by now 🤷♂️
I had the same thought about ideas traveling virally on their own merit versus ideas that go viral in venture capital circles. Two completely different things. I guess I just figured out why I'm a democratic socialist.
Anil, I admire the integrity and self-awareness at play here. Honest self reflection and changing one's mind are such depressingly rare qualities in today's political landscape
bonus points for proper use of the word “fungible"
I am currently finishing a book on reforming the Conservative movement, and how open minded liberals and conservatives can find common cause: help build communities and invest in social empowerment, going beyond partisan ideology platfroms.
I lived in NC (Ft Bragg w Army, then lived in Raleigh) for 6 years. I'm going there for the Holidays. I love NC
I absolutely hate what the NC GOP has become. It embodies the worst tribalism of our lower selves. It's why we need a schism within the Party
This is what I've been telling NC politicians to focus on: social innovation, local empowerment and poverty. It transcends the rediculous moralistic fault lines and fear mongering of the "culture war"
Non-Lethal Weapon
How Social Science and Information Systems, alongside Irregular Warfare veterans, Cultural Competency, and Community Building, can be a…
medium.com
I'll also encourage people to find inspiration in the courage to break with tradition. We need this in both parties now more than ever. A schism of science, free thinking and compassion
areomagazine.com/2017/06/24/bru… -american-political-discourse/
Why Bruce Lee’s Legacy Should Inspire Us to Revolutionize — and Modernize — American Political Discourse - Areo
How Bruce Lee set the framework for us to revolutionize and modernize American political discourse
areomagazine.com
The idea that some biotech startups abandoned San Francisco because of regressive neo-Malthusian ideas masquerading as "political correctness" seems dubious. Greens have long rejected such arguments.
If I may add-
There's a glossed-over distinction between "allowing" & "enabling" speech. Even if one doesn't *fund* hate or haters, if a workplace lets men objectify women, it enables toxic behaviors. If a society lets a man say women are objects, that's repugnant, but allowed.
Viaje is right: For an industry that fetishises a chess-like approach to strategy (thinking three moves ahead), we are childishly unwilling to see what our funding empowers as the game progresses.
OMG I'm so sorry for the typo. Please pardon my thumbs!
This is the distinction that many people lack re: ACLU support of August 12. Enabling speech I disagree with? A-OK! Funding Nazis’ ability to harm people? NOPE. Conflating those is dangerous.
The weirdest thing is that he gives his example about meat eating... but that means the discussion was had! "I think meat eating is unethical" "I don't".
Trite summary feels a lot like "everyone _must_ engage in conversations I want to start"
Or the conversation then becomes about why those personal rights are a thing... I just am having a hard time seeing how in this framework someone can disagree with Sam without it landing in a similar sort of conclusion. Would love to see what the successful convos looks like
I trust most silicon valley bros about as far as I can throw 'em.
And I have a really fucked up shoulder and can barely lift my arm.
so there's that.
Have you had a chance to read nplusonemag.com/issue-30/the-i… ? It seems directly pertinent too:
This was also a strategy outlined by Moldbug, who’s identifiable within or adjacent to their social circles. He called it a flaw in liberal democracy.
"neither here nor there"
Lord help us.
Altman and his ilk refuse to accept that hate speech drowns out legitimate speech. The two cannot coexist. Nor do they take responsibility for how they allow themselves to be manipulated by fascists, bigots, and bullies. They are either naive or complicit.
"Nor do they take responsibility for how they allow themselves to be manipulated by fascists, bigots, and bullies."
I like to dig out this in support... #HN & the ^no politics day^ the day #Thiel with the rest of #SV meet at the oval office.
cf <reuters.com/article/us-usa…>
Wow. That’s connecting two dots across diffferent universes. Both positions are fraught with issues and are wrong, but connected? C’mon man.
I would argue any marginalized person knows those two universes quite well. 👩🏻🚀👨🏾🚀👩🏽🚀👨🏻🚀
Agree to disagree. Connecting them dilutes rather than accentuates each issue. And solutions to the two are radically different. But both deserve a glaring spotlight. Thanks for your thoughts.
Jesus.
Did you really just call Sam Altman a Nazi for saying that SF doesn't respond well to differences of opinion?
I think you need to take a break from the internet.
Nope. He said he was supporting Nazis for suggesting that their recruiting needs to be protected as a non-objected-to opinion.
It's a little like how he's supporting Trump by supporting Thiel.
I understand, thank you for apologizing for making it sound like you were characterizing Sam Altman as a Nazi.
No harm done.
But... you literally just didn’t respond well to Anil’s opinion. And then told him he needed to not partake in the internet. Like... this response is precisely the problem, no?
I didn't say his ideas should be suppressed, I said that he needs to take a break because he's showing signs of serious psychological confusion and distress.
Though he's corrected the issue, apparently he wasn't characterizing Sam as Nazi-like in any way, so it was just a bit of confusion on both our parts.
Right on. I'm glad we're discussing. In that case I show signs of serious psychological confusion and distress frequently. But hey what's new. 😄
Gotta tell you, based on my twitter feed you're far from alone.
If I didn't know better, I'd think twitter itself was a leading cause of anxiety.
why that might actually be one of their success metrics. <kidding not really>
calling it naivete plays into his hands. it’s more likely he’s another cryptofascist.
et al are wrong in their critiques but I think what they are asking for is to be treated kindly. Where were they when [insert group] asked them for kindness? Nowhere. Your response feels accurate but vindictive. Is that fair? It's beyond me.
You do understand that the WWII-era Nazis assisted Dravidians like you in over-throwing British Rule in India, right? Google "Waffen SS India Legion" + learning about Hitler's personal bodyguards, the Indian Tiger Legion, is also a great read.
This rhetoric is used to silence/harass/fire non-leftists (the bar for “Nazi” by the angry mob).
Also, fighting bigotry with bigotry (you're treating people differently based on race/gender) is bound to backfire.
You look at a quote from a nazi who wants to kill jewish people and your objection is to my tweet. Interesting.
I was responding to your thread, not just your last tweet.
he is a well known garbage human.
It''s not his fault though, because as a 27 year old adult man, he doesnt understand consequences of his actions. Even when he accidentally finds himself hanging out with and agreeing with Nazis. No really.
Leftist? Is deciding whether to encourage human persecution a political choice?
I hope your posts convert at least one broflake.
Peter Thiel is one of the most visible assholes
I think he would greatly benefit from reading this.
This Is The Daily Stormer's Playbook
A leaked style guide reveals they’re Nazis about grammar (and about Jews).
huffingtonpost.com
But for physics all is forgiven (contra almost all historical evidence).
I've said it before, you can have a perfectly functional democracy and treat Nazis and people who advocate genocide for what they are (criminals). In fact it kind of goes hand in hand
(it's easy to forget, in the name of free speech, how the US dealt with Nazis at the end of WWII - it was swift, throrough and brutal and it would shock, shock Mr. Altman's conscience).
a point he misses is that free speech that victimizes marginalized people (like his "gay people are evil" example) causes us to miss the innovation ("novel things in physics" in his analogy) that those marginalized people would contribute if they weren't targeted/victimized
even if our ultimate goal is innovation over acceptance of the marginalized – which is really shouldn't be – there's still a loss of potential innovation if we're letting the potential next Einstein be made too uncomfortable with the physics community to participate
Yes, this. A thousand times this. Women are half the world. "Minorities" half the world. Gays/LBGT... spectrum a good chunk. Letting asshat white male haters run rampant is *at least* suppressing 80% of the brilliant ideas out there. At least.
And by "the world" I should have said US. Because if you look beyond the US, 95% of the world isn't the US. 3 brilliant Chinese kids, 3 brilliant Indian kids, 13 *other* brilliant kids born outside US for each brilliant US kid, BEFORE deducting 80% for straight white male. STUPID
I'm a white male privileged in many ways by genetics lottery, upbringing, and education. I know there are ~100 equals born the same day, with every bit of smarts I was born with who are out in other places and situations and never get the chances. Many w better work ethic.
these cats are soft as tissue paper.
There is not only one free speech problem to solve.
And let's not look past the fact that some of the VCs are white supremacists.
Example please.
Can you provide one example?
I'm much more worried about left-wing extremists fueling Nazis than right-wing moderates: theconversation.com/how-should-we-… I'd much rather a gay jew like Sam be the center of mass in the anti-PC movement, vs someone like Richard Spencer.
How should we protest neo-Nazis? Lessons from German history
We have an ethical obligation to stand against fascists and racists in a way that doesn't help them.
theconversation.com
Well, since both you & Nazis are fighting to capture mindshare among right-wing moderates, how much time do you spend trying to understand your audience? I'm a bit right-wing, and if anything, reading your feed makes Nazis sound a bit more attractive. Happy to chat in more depth.
I don't think it's curious. I don't have violent fantasies. But when I read your feed, there's a part of my brain that thinks: "This guy is nuts. Maybe joining the Nazis is the only way to stop him." The rest of my brain knows that's BS because I'm a reflective person.
If you actually want to stop Nazis, it matters a lot whether you are driving right-wingers in that direction.
Silly strawman. He didn't advocate providing resources, etc. for hatred. He advocated providing resources for good ideas help by people who may have opinions you disagree with.
Great, let’s find folks who want you & Your loved ones dead, and we can all send them money. Sound good?
That's clearly not what @sama argued for, and you know it.
Also, not everyone (actually, I assume the vast majority) who says "disparaging" things about gays wants them dead.
isn’t part of any marginalised group right? That would explain the flawed logic. If a person can’t put themselves in our shoes then they should listen to us rather talk so much
yes not even a question
So folks shouldn’t have supported MLK for his great ideas, even though his treatment of women was very flawed? 🤔 🤔
You can support specific ideas while criticising others.
It’s an obviously disingenuous argument; MLK hardly espoused systemic violence against women.
Sorry, I'm not trying to have a disingenuous argument. There are people that I think have some bad beliefs, that enable and are sometimes open about enabling bad thought. Malcom X? Amazing figure w/ insight, but pushed for separatism, etc.
Not everyone has everything figured out, but some do have unique insights that are valuable, and those insights should be promoted, while other beliefs that are wrong should be denounced. People make mistakes, and not everyone knows when they are.
A lot of people hold *wrong* beliefs on all sides. I'm not sure how many folks in SV dumped on/made fun of Appalachians and think that's okay. It's totally culturally acceptable, even though there's a reason folks like MLK tried to organize them.
Incest, people making jokes about missing teeth... So it's funny that people are so poor that they don't have dental care? I heard it *constantly*. Difference with me vs PoC is if I move and change my accent, people don't know where I'm from, which is def white privilege.
I agree. On board with that.
When one of a presidents first moves is to single out white supremacists & NeoNazis as ppl deserving to be taken off gov watch lists... I’d say it sends a not so subtle message
also - the problem isn't whether this person who hates [fill in the blank] will convince other people. The problem is that this person hates [fill in the blank]. Don't diminish the danger of individuals and small hate groups. One guy shot 500.
This argument also ignores the fact that other countries that do have laws against hate speech are no less free than the US.
You can have physics geniuses that don’t say mean things; this isn’t a zoidberg. It doesn’t incite violence, it is violence. Ez pz.
This is Damore-lite. Or Damore-like. Reasonable sounding but utterly dangerous
Also, it's bollocks.
Also: there is no unique genius or ideas. Techies like to pretend they are irreplacable because its a natural human impluse, but there are dozens if not hundreds of qualified people who can replace the homophobe whose good at physics.
Apologies for the wild typos, turned off predictive text due to bug issues, now realize I'm terrible at the tiny keyboard.
Also: what's destructive is that the ideas of marginalized people get ignored because we tolerate those in power who are intolerant. I would guess that there are more brilliant people in the world than the very few who get the chance to pursue their passions.
Understating for emphasis. We have failures at every level, starting w/a one size fits all educational system. Oh & just because it's that kind of day, today's Net Neutrality bs will make it harder for marginalized people to get access to education. Too early to start drinking?
Physics matters more.
A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. But sadly most Valley techbros (and many others) would argue that no, our lives don’t matter as much as physics.
The sheer hypocrisy as he defends the right to make disparaging comments about gay people while equating disparaging comments about his own shit ideas as oppression. The fuck?!
The part about misunderstanding the reality is "we have to allow people to say"—it's not only that nobody has any power or right to allow or not allow others to say anything, it's unwillingness to understand that a person has only one power—control own reactions, not other people
It also supposes a one genius fallacy, that the bigot is the only person destined to solve the problem when in fact the gay people they disparage may offer even more valuable improvements to our lives.
the idea that you could fund a non-homophobic/racist physicist and get probably the same results as funding a homophobic/racist physicist is totally alien to people who have an unwavering faith in their own unique genius. sam altman has no idea how pedestrian he really is
The rest of this thread is good, but this is the part that always fascinates me--so often the people crying loudest about "Free Speech" are in effect trying to stifle it.
The folks upset about protests over Milo and Ann Coulter wanted the police to deter protesters--ie, shutting down free speech.
When I point this out, people almost invariably refer to the "Heckler's Veto," which they think means "raising your voice to drown out another," but that is not, and has never been, what that term means.
From being at many such events in the Bay Area, it’s worth keeping in mind that hardline no platforming (the hecklers veto) is rare. This handwringing from the press is disingenuous.
Also I have friends at Berkeley who have had violent right-wing groups target them, blocking exits from evening meetings in classrooms.
Free speech for anyone who believes like me that the marketplace of ideas is more important than the safety of those they affect
While he’s in China, Altman should also try loudly and publicly talking about some controversial ideas about the Party being corrupt and a change in government being necessary and see how long he feels comfortable discussing those ideas there.
They would do nothing to a rich Westerner saying anything he likes.
Ironically, many of the Eastern cultures tend to value courtesy a lot more than being upfront, so who knows if the people around him were actually so cool with what he was saying. They may not want to tell him to his face what they really think.
He should do a meetup about VPNs and Tor and bypassing censorship and using crypto currencies in violation of local laws and report back. I am genuinely curious.
It's also frustrating because in China, he's The Money. Of course it's safe for him to talk about stuff in China because literally everybody is doing their level best to accommodate him, make him feel good and get him to invest his money.
Even that would only go so far, though.
The responses are made with the assumption that speech is violence and in some cases, the response is actual violence for whatever ‘inflammatory’ speech the response was for.
There is no reason, for example, for Ben Shapiro to need $600k of security.
I thought he was complaining about not being able to hear things.
If you can't hear, you won't get any warning that a conman is about to be elected President or a pervert about to be nominated as Senator.
One person’s legitimate criticism is another person’s hate speech.
Stop trying to mask your contempt for public opinions and free speech with unicorn problems.
It's because of shit logic like this and the cult of PC that SV is so bias and non inclusive.
I get it, you want people to cut checks to nazis. It’s still a bad idea.
No I want people to express ideas and don't resort to childish and pedestrian name calling.
But your cult like thoughts are that opposing views are dangerous and throw out baseless nazi names who were evil socialists anyway
And one of the things nazis did was ban free speech and free thought which is what you're advocating. So who's the real nazi?
No it’s not, but I know why you’re lying about me. Anyway, feel free to send your money to Nazis, just let everybody know you did.
We all have things we are unable to say. It’s part of living in any society. The problem with the rich/powerful is that their money/influence allows them to say anything they want in their sphere of influence. They get mad when society at large holds them accountable.
In SF there exist countless examples of those willing to eschew science for PCness, in the name of safety. Attacking / stifling others for discussing upsetting aspects of reality will lead to brain drain. Sometimes honest exchange hurts, yet we’re better for it in the long run.
Name one such example.
Hyperbolic and uninformed reaction to Damore’s memo.
...crickets...
there's no eschewing of science; all the rebuttals to his assertions cited science. I don't reply to people who are obviously either lying or incompetent.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Anyone who questions your religious dogma is either lying or incompetent. Who wouldn’t want to work with someone holding that attitude!
And actually, speaking of lying, a statement like “all the rebuttals....” is doomed to falsity from the get go. But of course, ideologues don’t worry too much about consistency.
Finally, you do realize that you sound a lot like proponent of Intelligent Design and those who deny climate change when you make statements like this. Basically: “Consensus scientific agreement should be defended! ...when it agrees with my underlying ideology, else it’s lies!”
You’re making a false assertion about consensus scientific agreement, just like a climate denier.
Haha oh yeah? I guess my studies of and research into Evolutionary Psychology while at Yale, and in-depth familiarity with the literature after years of study were all for naught, then? You are an ideologue, sir. Read the literature.
Looool tell me about those peer-reviewed repeatable evolutionary psychology trials you published.
I’m not listed on the papers given that I was an undergraduate assisting with research at Yale’s Comparative Cognition Laboratory. Plenty of papers came from the research. But nice inverse appeal to authority. Again, I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t enjoy your arrogance...
“NICE INVERSE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY” — Matt, who went to Yale
Perhaps you’d have a point if my claim wasn’t merely responding to your baseless insults and assumptions.
If you’d like to speak from an informed position rather than remain an ideological mouthpiece, begin here:
The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences? - Heterodox Academy
The recent Google Memo on diversity, and the immediate firing of its author, James Damore, have raised a number of questions relevant to the mission of Heterodox Academy. Large corporations deal with many of the same issues that we wrestle with at universities, such as how to seek truth and achieve the kinds of diversity we want, being cognizant that we are tribal creatures often engaged in motivated reasoning, operating within organizations that are at risk of ideological polarization. In this post, we address the central empirical claim of Damore’s memo, which is contained in its second sentence.
heterodoxacademy.org
What does the research say about what kind of scumbag you have to be to consort with Molyneux, let alone go on his show?
If you’re unwilling to look at a meta-study because of an association with someone you dislike, I’m not sure where to go from here. The study itself was a 2017 editor’s pick on BehavioralScientist.org. I can lead you to water, but can’t make you drink.
Editors’ Picks for 2017: Important Behavioral Science Reads, Listens, and Views - Behavioral Scientist
To tie a bow on all the interesting and important work that came across our desks in 2017, our editorial team got together and compiled a list of our personal favorites.
behavioralscientist.org
I’m unwilling to indulge you pretending any part of this was a good faith discussion. Did you know: I don’t give a shit you went to Yale?
I think your persistent need to insult me is the source of bad faith here. Anyhow, have a nice evening.
There’s no insult there. I do believe that you think others not revering Yale is an insult, though!
my fav BS response to the backlash is: "the backlash proves he's right!" it's so Trumpy.
which of course is also wrong: he doesn't have to delete his post and won't get fired from his job (which is more than you can say for marginalized people speaking up)
What is with the nostalgic obsession of historical figures like they are demigods without human flaw? “oooOo can you imagine if this scientist that’s dead couldn’t denounce the gays in the comfort of his home?! No gravity!”
Yes! In a culture built on iteration, you have leaders begging us to keep zero day vulnerabilities and bugs in the source code every new release. I want to have less bigot geniuses, please. Let's try that! this is connected to the broader conversation of encouraging bad behavior.
"see, this is why we have trump" is seems to me to be a cousin of whataboutism. Trumpy is a great descriptor.
None of the engagement seems thoughtful to me. I don't see a serious attempt to consider his perspective. It all seems pretty reactive. For people who claim to be concerned with ethics, your ethical views strike me as shallow/unsophisticated and lacking any kind of nuance.
Just once I want some Silicon Valley bro complaining about being oppressed to NOT just be whining that despite their riches & privilege they aren’t allowed to be openly racist/sexist/homophobic without consequences.
Just once.
this is probably the best, most concise take on the issue I've ever seen. Nailed it.
These are the bros that would have gone to Wall St in earlier times. They went to tech instead, and now we are overrun with them.
I think what he was trying to say was that we are losing out on brilliant people because we are pillorying them for their odious views. To which I say:
Groundbreaking empirical research shows where innovation really comes from
Breaking down barriers for underrepresented kids could quadruple America’s pool of inventors.
vox.com
+1. Attributing our past progress to tolerance of all ideas ignores the highly likely alternate world of even more progress where brilliant minds weren't stifled bc of race or sex or preference. Lots of brilliance the world never got to see bc of thinking like this (e.g. Turing)
👋was just doing some bedtime Twitter thread reading, fancy meeting you here lol. Also, 👌Turing is a perfect example.
Holy crap hi @Miss_Hanie !!! How's life?! And thanks ☺️
I expected San Francisco to be more close-minded, and aggressive about propping up "limousine liberal" ideals. I found the reality to be quite different, that people are more open and inclusive of people and ideas in general, even if they don't fit the mold.
Excuse me, did you not understand the broad stereotyped strawmen he was invoking? Please don't bring actual experience into the discussion. This is about how we need to be able to hate gays because physics. /S
Thanks for doing this, Anil. I can't believe he spent his day whining about this while the FCC was trying to take away the Internet for millions of people.
An honest and sincere question: is there anyone you know with a different opinion on any social issue that you do not believe absolutely to be a vicious and evil bigot, or an enabler thereof?
gotta weigh in with Anil here. that was pretty dickish.
I can't imagine being enough of a sanctimonious a-hole to respond to Ben's tweet in this way.
It was an honest and respectfully worded question that you decided to not reply to constructively. I actually read it curious about your reply as I thought it might actually be thoughtful.
you're easily fooled by flowery language if you sincerely believe this
starting a question with "sincerely and honestly" doesn't negate the condescension of the actual question
I don't know, as a follower of both I was genuinely curious. Anil comes off that way online. I don't know him well enough to judge. He could have constructively made it clear instead of confirming the implied assertion.
Yep. That tweet explicitly accused Anil of not being able to engage with people who disagree with him unless it's to call them evil. It does not deserve anything more than snark.
And the preamble of an honest and sincere question? That means he *honestly* and *sincerely* believes his accusation toward Anil. Flowery language got you, though.
Lol yep. We definitely shouldn't be polite in our online discourse.
Apparently we shouldn't because people like you get fooled by polite speech.
dude, you're seriously missing the point here. despite starting with "an honest and sincere question," the question was NOT "polite"
Nope.
Remember that scene in The Office where Gareth says Tom can't chat up Rachel because *motions with two fingers from eyes to Rachel* and Tim said "That's it! You've won the argument with that."
It's a mood.
Two snarky tweets, but only one gets criticised by this guy. Hm.
Starting with “honest and sincere” is like starting with “I have a lot of X friends but”
"My lawyer is Jewish"
Not even close to an accurate comparison. Particularly on an online medium where indicating sarcasm or not is valuable.
That question can be rewritten without the preamble and it means exactly the same thing.
The preamble means you aren't being rhetorical and expect a reply.
John, you just don't get it, sit down and do something else now.
Lol, whatever
It means you are emphasizing being an asshole not just being one.
The reason why this went to holy shit/hold my beer is because he used China as his counter example
cf: "sealion" the verb
You’re a demagogue on a crusade.
How many bodies will be burnt at the stake before you’re satisfied that no one else is consorting with the devil?
I think this is a rephrasing if your “some people are more afraid of being called racist than actually being racist”. Yours is a better sound bite, but this hits the point a little more for me.
It was not honest in any way.
It was a question that was *inherently* disrespectful. For example:
“Honest and respectful question: is there any white supremacist position you won't defend?”
Do you feel that this is *actually* an honest and respectful question that will lead to meaningful dialogue?
Implying one agrees with all white supremacist is different than simply implying that you may not engage with people that differ with you on a subject as broad as "social issues"
Let me rephrase the question, then, into less weaselly language:
“You think that anyone who disagrees with you in any way on any social issue is evil, right?”
That's a disrespectful question. It *exactly* mirrors the “you defend white supremacy” question.
The gravity and magnitude of white supremacist ideology is wholly different. The connotation of that is implicitly accusatory. It's a specific and ugly accusation.
Is it not a specific and ugly accusation that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is evil?
My god anil you are really an asshole. You can't listen to one opposite viewpoint.
‘Implicitly accused‘ = ‘did not say that at all but I decided to imagine it did’. Come on.
Fwiw:
- I strongly agree with @anildash’s critique of @sama
- I think Anil misinterpreted @BenedictEvans tweet
I agree the question was mean & condescending but I don’t think he was implicitly accusing you of never having served in your community or engaging honestly in helping people in your neighborhood. I think he’s accusing you of not dealing w people who disagree with you reasonably.
And the people involved matter. Anil and Ben are fairly public figures. Neither attack people or are rude online.
I hear ya. Anyway, I really liked this thread - thanks for writing it.
Anil, like Mark,I am surprised at the violence of your response to Benedict’s tweet (though looking at it now, seems to indicate some kind of history?) which I read differently than you at first. I admire both of you very much, like many others am sure! I hope peace ensues 🙂
Wow, I thought your tweets to Sam's post were really good, but I'm shocked of your aggression towards Benedict's q. Also your justification for it is shocking. "His question insulted me so I HAD to be aggressive to him"= "My wife said something insulting so I head to beat her up"
Much as I gained immensely by Ben's insights on tech, I must say that in more than one instance I have found his condescension repulsive. And there is a pattern to whom he behaves that way to. It's sad.
Sorry dude, it's your own words. Real free speech is if people can speak up to aggressive and abusive behaviour whether the aggressor likes it or not. As I said, your tweets were great, but doesn't give you the right to act abusive to others who ask something politely.
I didn't paint you as anything, because you already painted yourself there. Aggression is never a solution, and since you think there's cases where aggressive behaviour is acceptable I wanted to demonstrate you where this thinking will lead you...
Equating angry tweets with violence is ridiculous. Anger is sometimes warranted and sometimes constructive.
Are you just dumb? He used an analogy of domestic abuse to support his argument. He didn't claim or imply you're the equivalent of a domestic abuser.
TBH I've never heard of Ben/Anil before 1h ago when I saw Sam's tweet. I thought Anil's tweets were brilliant and then I was shocked when he started swearing in response to a simple q. That's all I know. To an outsider like me it seems v. out of proportion. MB I'm missing history
In all honesty, I don't really want to engage in this any longer. We are all different and feel differently and personally the tone of swearing hit probably a nerve with me which made me believe it was unnecessary, but... 1/2
I don't want to accuse you of anything either. I liked your initial tweets and I'd be happy to leave it at this. I can see how we both probably read things very differently and therefore argue past each other whilst we probably have the same intention from the same good place.
The original question was passive-aggressive BS, and the asker got called on it. No one who isn’t an asshole asks “Are you really capable of engaging in respectful dialogue with anyone who disagrees on social issues?” That is equivalent to asking “Are you a sociopath?”
There was nothing polite about that persons question as much as they wanted to frame it as such. Your passive aggression is open hostility, and you need to own that @dustinmoris .
I hope everyone else at @a16z isn’t as condescending and frankly timid as @BenedictEvans. If you want to attack someone come out and do it, but don’t frame it as “reasonable discourse”.
Lying is not civil. Lying is not reasonable.
'politely'!?
Omg, this is NOT how domestic/relationship abusers think -- they are not defending their honor. Please don't conflate a twitter argument with this.
What kind of a low life implies another is a wife-beater with no evidence to support it whatsoever? Why does @spolsky keep you payroll?
You know Dustin is the one said that about me, not vice versa, right? Or is this just another of your lies?
Benedict Evans is a shithead who loves giving cover to fascists. Anil treated him with exactly the courtesty he deserves.
That's not violence ffs.
Then I'll look into those examples myself. No need to worry about you and Ben.
Possibly, just tone-deaf. That seems to afflict those of us too infatuated with our greatness to understand the difference between discussion of ideas and attacks on individuals. Some games aren't meant to be played with sharp elbows.
It wasn't a question, it was a sneer with a question mark at the end.
Folks with authority don’t get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being ambiguous and/or careless with their discourse. It’s part of the responsibility from having authority.
Since you agree the question was mean and condescending, why would it deserve a friendly or civil response? Lying is not civil.
In actual fact, the shitty fake "question" proves that @benedictevans is the one not dealing with people who disagree with him reasonably.
I would be upset, no matter how it was phrased. But if phrased respectfully, I'd certainly engage to see why they think that way.
For me, I don’t go out to give a sh*t about how folk see me tbh. Especially where robust bodies of knowledge exist. Because whether we like it or not, nobody has a right to an opinion in the presence of fact. If they do, they’re idiots.
The irony of this thread isn’t lost on me
Or you could answer the damn question.
I think @BenedictEvans misinterpreted his own tweet. He may not have meant insult but there is no other way to read it. Asking someone if they are capable of disagreeing with someone civilly is either a leading question or an accusation.
You're completely wrong about @BenedictEvans question.
Clearly you didn’t understand the question *at all*. I was afraid of that, which I why I emphasized my sincerity (which you ignored). So: you very often talk as though everyone you disagree with is a bigot. That might not be your intention but it is the impression you create.
Anil pls take full responsibility for how this person misunderstands you. etc.
A good place would be starting with the Chinese Communist Party and acknowledging that on the evil totem pole they're about a small step below North Korea
I'm just a fly on the wall, but I have to agree with Benedict Evans. Your tone in this entire thread is 10x more aggressive than his.
From my perspective, you come off as irritatingly sanctimonious and holier-than-thou when dealing with someone who disagrees with you in earnest.
If I can't sincerely question your ideas without being called an "asshole" and being accused of "sheer condescension", what interest do I have in ever constructively engaging with you?
This was my takeaway from @sama's post.
Not great examples but I see your point.
Consider improving your writing, then.
Often the most self righteous are compensating for some overwhelming guilt. Which is different from being guilty.
What? No it didn't.
No, it implicitly accused you of being a radical ideologue. Your weird strawmen lend support to his implication.
Benedict tweets like he’s gonna be in history books or some shit
It was an honest and sincere question- thank you for an honest and sincere answer, and one that confirms my impression so strongly.
Thank you both for the self-important journo versus journo slag! I love that stuff!
Keep up the pretension!
you asked a shitty, leading question, tried to couch it in language that would make it seem less overtly awful, and got called on it. stop pretending you were after any sort of good faith dialogue here.
Honesty and sincerity isn't much of a defense in any context. One can honestly, and with sincerity, do all kinds of awful things.
You’re an honest and sincere dumbfuck.
I hear I have an obligation to tell you that or we will miss out on some physics breakthrough.
Anal Dash
Anil with the heat...
What do I search for to get this gif? 😁
Jesus that question is spring-loaded.
Do you not remember how good ole Benedict mansplained to me? He’s a ridiculous twat and defender of the indefensible.
Whenever someone says, "an honest and sincere question" you know you're in for some bullshit.
Then, he blocked me because I disagreed with him. He’s as thin skinned as Tom “krystallnacht” peters. Wtf is it with the snowflake rich white dudes?
They are so busy navel gazing in their secure little White Male bubble that they will not get it - not even if it walked up and kissed them.
Where's my money anil
I agree that @BenedictEvans’ tweet was condescending & dimissive. BTW Benedict, how’s Andreesen Horowitz coping with #metoo?
Anil, my dude, you’re trying to argue with a guy who thinks racial epithets like “the Hindu rate of growth” are totally okay
I mean, honest & sincere question: why do you hate puppies? :)
Yes, e.g. you.
Or really even, take the damn subway and not be deservedly elbowed
Also honest and sincere question: have you read @anildash's thread in detail and sincerely tried to understand where he's coming from? Like putting yourself in his shoes and letting the arguments in?
Even if you end up still not agreeing, that's very much worth doing.
oh come on
Did you know that it's possible for a question to be honest and sincere yet still terrible?
Yes. This is not that, and you know it,
It's not what? Honest, sincere, or terrible? :)
The reason Im so focused on SV is its reliance on predictive data. These people dont know what they dont know. Instead of allowing for difference, they think, say and do in 1 Size Fits All. 180 from American ethos. And theyre insanely rich kids.
Please, consider the possibility that @anildash knows something you don't know, and that that might account for this thing you don't understand.
to provide a specific case, @anildash has disagreed with me about stuff (“free speech” especially!) but civilly for *years*
It's true @tolles. And yet I adore you! 😂
I could probably finally break 4k followers if I just quoted this in my twitter bio.
Just someone whitewashing an authoritarian regime with numerous crimes against their own people and showing their extreme ignorance
Your disingenuous intellectual dishonesty game is weak, bro.
com on, this is slippery slope. The two choices aren't "agreement" and "vicious and evil bigot". There are plenty of people who are benignly wrong.
ugh, sorry, it's a false dichotomy, not a slippery slope.
Ah the arbiter of all that is correct has spoken!
Huh. This is intense. So Anil & I wildly disagree on many political issues. Yet we remain friends, support each other and have never once called the other evil. Civil discourse and respect go a long way
Sorry Benedict but this is a bad look. Real talk this is an easy example of why I rage at my husband for doing anything a16z related because the partner base enables so much behavior that’s just plain cruddy for anyone that isn’t a young white dude.
I find that both saddening and baffling, given the enormous effort the firm puts into exactly the opposite direction.
If you want to chat about it I’m always available for a friendly coffee or phone calll. I come bearing hugs, smiles and makeup.
Probably worth thinking about why with enormous effort the perception persists. Product market fit discussion if I ever saw one.
I’m sure we both agree on the following gif
Was going to slide into your DMs with said offer of chat but seems yours are closed. Seriously though here if you ever want a different viewpoint I’m here
Well last time I tried my consulting rate line it didn’t go over well. 😜💯👌🏻. I do this pro bono work. You’d be surprised how much time goes into it but I hope it’s worth it.
Thanks @AlmostMedia I worry about how hard @anildash on this platform that ruins chance for discourse. Tagging him so he sees and think @BenedictEvans has great insights is opened On @sama consistently disappointed
Also should’ve just watched by you were right on so many points
Benedict is great & I learn from him here. Anil too. But it strikes me as ironic that in a debate about free speech you’d like Anil to watch his tone
which is decidedly racial/ race-related.
Define "a different opinion." Because opinions HAVE CONTENT. If the difference of opinion is on things like "gay people don't deserve civil rights" or "women are incubators" or "it's ok to let children die of preventable illness if their parents are poor" then yeah that's evil.
buddy... this says way more about you than it does about anil, wow
He writes innovation makes it okay for gay people to be ridiculed or "treating others well" is something we should be "willing to" accomodate. If it were different social issues you might have a point but sometimes what looks, sounds, eats and shits like a duck is just a duck.
Consider your own filter bubble to elaborate such question, frame it like you did.
I've had heated political, social issues discussion with allies people who are dearest to me. I also believe most people do. Maybe not on Twitter, or Facebook?
this is a disgusting way to frame a question. If this is you being sincere, fix yourself.
Your white male privilege is showing, Benedict. Check yourself.
Ben, listen to yourself. This is “when did you stop beating your wife?” Given that a16z fund urbit, you are objectively an enabler of vicious bigot Curtis Yarvin, so I can see why you're nervous.
An honest and sincere question: can you look at the grand total replies to this tweet and not question yourself at all?
the way your question begins very openly (“anyone you know”, “any social issue”) and then clamps down to absolutes (“believe absolutely”, “vicious and evil bigot”) is extremely misleading. here is an example that follows your format:
“A polite and honest question: Is there any food that you didn’t enjoy that you didn’t think was sickening and poisonous, or at least vomit-inducing?”
Do you see how that isn’t a fair way to engage on a topic? How it is loaded, leading, and doesn’t invite sincere engagement?
Benedict. If Anil had said "sure, obviously, all the time"... What kind of point were you trying to make?
Your "honest and sincere" preamble had me prepped for some hilariously entitled San Frannery and my dude you did not disappoint.
This is me and my best friend, Rose.
Rose votes Labour.
I vote Conservative.
However, we have not let our political differences get in the way of our 16 years (and counting) of friendship.
Be more like me and Rose.
The sealioning is strong on this one.
I kind of enjoy our #brexit sparring. Is that what you think of people with different view than you?
I know people like that. They're the kind of people don't immediately presume that I believe them to be a fuckstick in order to invalidate my points and debate in bad faith. Kinda like someone here right now...
Benedict, next time just post the "Everyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler" image macro and make it both quicker and easier for your camp to identify the flag you're flying. Thanks.
It helps the rest of us out, as well, so we don't spend resources decoding what is - in essence - an intellectually bankrupt "Have you stopped beating your wife" cheapshot rhetorical fallacy that belongs on 4chan, not in the public communications of supposedly-responsible adults.
@bardfinn If they have to SAY their question is "honest and sincere", then that in itself is a good reason to assume it's neither of those things in almost every situation. Qualifiers like that are almost always a red flag that they're arguing in egregiously bad faith.
There are right answers in ethics as there are right answers in physics, math and history. Saying “PC” is flat-earthing.
I assume that @BenedictEvans did not mean this question to sound so profoundly rude, but I can’t see a kind way to read this. I am somewhat shocked to read something like this.
The ones who don't entertain the idea that women, gay people or minorities are inferior to white men? The, uh, definition of bigotry.
This is a ridiculously stupid thing to ask. Boy you really got him with that one.
Very disappointed in @BenedictEvans. Your blog posts are insightful, but this is you just trying to stir up trouble like a child. Shameful.
If someone does not believe in the humanity of others, they are by definition a vicious and evil bigot or enabler thereof.
So, your answer is ‘no!’, where Anil seems to be furious at the suggestion his answer might be the same
I think Anil is furious that you consider the question even worth asking. I know I am.
You answered no, he answers yes.
Ideas like “gay people shouldn’t have rights” or “black people aren’t fully human” are not something where someone can “agree to disagree.” That’s for sports, not others’ essential humanity.
I just think all republicans are child-molesting traitors who should be skinned alive and set on fire! But there couldn't POSSIBLY be anything hateful about that, because the GOP sees no hate whatsoever when THEY treat everyone else like shit! Let's be CIVIL about this! 😜😜😝🤪
This is neither honest nor sincere, and unfortunately Benedict's takeaway from being called on it is likely to be "WELL, that just proves my point!"
But if you'd like more detail, Ben, interrogate your dismissive use of the phrase "social issue."
Yes - have you ever had someone call you a faggot and punch you in the face?
SIT DOWN
But if people feel free to express disapproval of ideas they think are bad, we might never have gotten...
:checks notes:
...Bitcoin.
you are making his point
I am unaware that I expressed hatred, and it was not my intention to do so. I just think, very respectfully, that you are making his point.
Where did he say it's better to fund people like that?
I think he uses the homophobes as an example for an opinion that he clearly does not share. You can also insert your least favorite take on the Middle East conflict. Most political ideas result from biographical factors, not malicious intent.
I'd rather risk the hurt feelings than to criminalize unpopular criticism.
Anything the govt touches control of degrades into authoritarianism.
I get the feeling you wouldn't want President Trump to decide which words we can and can't use.
Well, you can't actually steal their work before you've funded them to produce the work.
The idea here is that history is made by large groups of good people fighting large groups of bad people. Once you figured out who the good guys are (by God's good graces it usually happens to be you and the people you admire), anything you do to bad people is justifiable.
I thought we were talking about physics research! (But I'm also sympathetic to the idea that women/POC will do just as good/innovative work if people would just fund them at equal levels.)
I don't know. I agree with your first point that they're just being sensitive sausages. Who really cares if some people wrongly call you racist? You'd let it drive you away from doing your work?
I've been attacked by vicious Internet mobs this year for (1) supporting supply and demand; (2) apologizing using the wrong words; (3) liking Peter Thiel; and (4) saying people criticize mothers too much. It's not that big of deal. I can still speak.
To be fair, two of those things are really vile!
Sorry you find them vile: I will resign as a VC promptly and never speak again.
My comments in this thread have just landed me in a list of "mansplainers" of an account that maintains registers of "mysoginists, rape apologists, content thieves and random horrible people". I will retreat from this discussion.
Well, if it’s any consolation, I’ve liked your comments on this thread!
In fairness, liking Peter Thiel is pretty fucking horrible.
I suspect to be really good at physics, you need be able to form your opinions independently from the people around you. This means you are often weird and may sometimes have opinions far outside the current political mainstream.
The people who want to create safe public spaces to re-litigate tribal morality & classical cosmopolity are projecting their superficial understanding of everything outside their narrow field onto social institutions that have been digesting these ideas for thousands of years.
If some adult grown bored with their worship of capitalism wants to explore the contents of the liberal arts courses they slept through, let them by all means, but the rest of us are not going to burn our maps and knock down our fence posts because they want to play frontiersman.
this is all very far fetched and I believe, but to be honest I'm in a romantique phase, that the run for "more" even benevolant one won't fix anything
And what about the gay people that are banished, or never even join, because of the toxic environment?
But that's only true if you believe that homophobes on average have more to contribute than the people who will be driven out of the field by the homophobes.
It's complete bullshit. The only way supporting people who would dehumanize others is a win is if you support their views and regard the collateral damage as a feature, not a bug.
I think the trouble seems to be that many of the greatest scientific advances of the last century have been heavily funded by states / ideologies keen to use them against other states / ideologies. There wasn't a lot of "preventing suffering" in the Space Race.
Do you really think that it is an accurate summary of the argument that @sama expressed the wish to allocate funding so that more gay teens kill themselves?
If that means you think he isn’t writing in bad faith —but that he is merely misguided— the vitriol of your response is completely asymmetric.
Maybe. I’ve carefully read the detail expand and have failed to identify an obvious nazi. Maybe it’s like Clue; the nazi could be me.
Nevertheless if your goal is to rail, well done. But if it’s to persuade opponents, consider a different tack.
As someone who only knows @sama from his and his org's very public words and actions, making that assumption of his/their intent seems unwarranted ᖍ(ツ)ᖌ
He just said he didn’t think it was the intent. But it IS the outcome. Enabling hate by funding haters, regardless of their other talents, creates more victims.
As @nberlat just wrote, “Free speech has long been used to protect the speech of people who were already free.”
The confusion is in part thinking that controversial speech is the main target of restrictions.
The main target of restrictions is marginalized people. Restrictions work to make certain people shut up, not to shut up certain ideas.
So, "we need to protect homophobes to protect us all," as if homophobes are the most in need of protection, is a basic misperception.
The people who are silenced most are not homophobes, but gay people. (There's even a name for it; it's called 'the closet.')
A lot of just seems to come back to equality feeling like “persecution” and “discrimination” for the people who historically benefited from the inequality.
that's a pithier way of putting it!
That’s high praise coming from you. I’ll groove on that for a bit.
It can be either or both. I think the more interesting assumption is that distribution of ideas must be approx. symmetric. The usual mechanism for preventing bad ideas is then assumed to be capping variance, but skewing the distribution would seem to be a better approach.
I don’t think a normal distribution is necessarily likely, a) because ideas are dynamic and viral and b) because people are tribal. I would expect it to be multi-modal.
Agree that ideas are likely to be clustered along tribal lines and that idea of what is good / bad will also vary along those line.
I think that using a 17th century tribe’s failure to classify good and bad ideas to justify social tolerance of bad ideas in the 21st century seems like a pessimistic view of human progress.
Yes we will get somethings wrong, but we don’t need to re-litigate why slavery is bad from first principles so that people feel comfortable pitching controversial physics ideas. There’s three centuries of philosophy, science, and progress we can draw on.
I can't fault anyone for trying to be generous in interpreting something, or giving the benefit of doubt, least of all @anil. Just not the only reasonable posture anymore IMO is all.
Oh. You actually think Altman HAS ill intent? Interesting. I’m inclined to think he’s just another utopian but misguided libertarian-leaning tech bro, but I really don’t know.
Sam Altman’s Manifest Destiny
Is the head of Y Combinator fixing the world, or trying to take over Silicon Valley?
newyorker.com
Is there any difference between someone with bad intent, and someone that actually doesn't, but who acts and speaks as if he does, over and over?
If he can be shown he’s doing so and how to amend it? Then yes.
how much hand-holding do the multi-{million,billion}aires really need? 🙃
Wealth is part of the problem. It creates an illusion of infallibility in all areas, especially when earned(lucked into) young before you’ve even developed your own theory of mind.
Also the number of successful businesspeople who exhibit sociopathy or narcissism?
In don't think that Anil Dash is a narcissistic sociopath, he genuinely tries to make the world a better place. As do many others.
Almost all people try to serve good, and most people even agree what they think is good (reducing suffering, increasing flourishing etc.). But people strongly disagree on the best strategy to increase goodness, and think those advocating other strategies must be motivated by evil
I don't think that's true. I think some people are malicious, and many people are motivated by personal greed to the exclusion of all else, with similar results, and I think that power and wealth, and maybe moreso the promise of them, corrupt and blind people to good.
Do you think it remotely plausible that @sama is maliciously serving personal greed by harming gay teenagers via pointing out that public discourse in the US has possibly become too totalitarian? I worry that this country is falling apart.
More pointedly, he can, he likely has, and likely will. He just doesn't want to suffer any reputational consequences of doing so.
btw, re: "too totalitarian":
you can say exactly *everything* one might have said in 1950. You just might not be able to get/keep jobs, partners, friends, etc. Speech is freer than ever, there just happen to be material *private* consequences
In Eastern Germany, the consequence for saying things you were not supposed to say was usually not prison (because few things were explicitly illegal to say), but loss of university placing, career, etc., and you were shunned by colleagues and sometimes even friends and partners.
To revise what I said previously: you would face exactly those consequences in 1950 too, but *only* if you said or did things that contravened the powerful mainstream demanded the subjugation of women, brown people, queer folk, etcetc.
I did grow up in communist Eastern Germany, which restricted freedom of speech in the name of the very best intentions. Any dissenting argument was silenced or punished with the response that it would reenable Hitler fascism again. Especially the argument that maybe it would not.
I don’t really think DDR leadership had “the very best intentions.” The BRD managed to ban Nazi symbols and speech with no obvious loss of civil liberty, economic freedom, or civic engagement, and the fascists seem to be centered among the Ossis.
Unlike the DDR, the BRD integrated former fascists and high ranking nazi officials into government, police and secret service (even though the results where arguably better in the long run). I knew a number of DDR officials, they really had good intentions.
Quite sure the State isn't restricting anything here.
The post is making a cultural argument, trying to cultivate cultural permission to fund and collaborate with (just as an example) ethnic nationalists if doing so will be profitable.
True, I think he was responding to Noah’s argument, which he made regarding the wedding cake case, that state support free speech should be reframed in terms of whose speech needs protection. Hate speech erodes the speech of the marginalized, and the state can help redress that.
You know, he didn’t say it’s better to fund people who overtly hate gay people. It’s not even implied. Can’t you see any difference btwn “say disparaging things about gay people” and that?
lol. WRONG
In the opening he says he wishes to be in China. Given the social context and Sam's excess of wealth and privilege how do you interpret Sam's essay charitably?
The claim is not that he prefers living in China over living in the US, but that based on his experiences in both countries, he worries that public discourse in the US (which prides itself for being liberal) may have become in parts less pluralist than in China.
Is that your interpretation. If so how did you disentangle the context. China is by almost all measure less free than the U.S. How did you work around that context and take Sam's claim at face value?
I couldn't get past his comparison to China. A place where you can be arrested, beaten and inprisoned for saying the wrong things.
I can't wait to see @sama toiling in a salt mine re-education camp, you know like they have in China, where he feels more comfortable.
That was the entire point of the anecdote.
Yea, I kinda got that. It's ridiculous.
Then the point is so wrong it never started being coherent. The Chinese cultural training is to be agreeable and non-confrontational to those with connections and power. That @sama equivocates deference with free speech is the very symbol of his obliviousness.
Needing to be “agreeable and non confrontational to those with connections and power”, of course, being the very exact parallel of the exact problem @anildash is pointing out
Is the criticism mainly to do with author’s gender and wealth?
Is this one of those "we should ignore power and all context and analyze statements as if history and legacy don't exist" arguments?
His entire piece falls apart right there
I’m noticing a clear pattern on who’s questioning you on this, so far...
Anal Dash
And they don’t take you up on the Cliff notes when you offer it up either
And then they get mad when we scream to get their attention because oh no loud angry ladies and or brown men
It’s so funny — they think they’re so smart but actually in their self perception as such, they’re so dumb.
What fascinating and troubling irony.
Not just dead, disdained.
and @BenedictEvans are particularly harmful in their calm “rationality” of terrible ideas. But nobody’s immune to motivated reasoning. VC motivations are particularly selfish and blind to privilege but we all have them.
yes!!! "calm rationality" is seriously a thing a specific set of people have. !!!
THAT should be pretty easy to determine. IF Mr. Sam I AM doesn't take this convo as an invitation to outline his ramblings in Beijing, you might be onto something.
Can’t imagine why underrepresented groups don’t feel comfortable in tech with blog posts like these from our “leaders”
Why is it somehow a philosophical exercise to determine what it means to be a 💩 person, anyway?
Does immorality exist anymore?
The TV show the good place illustrates this point so well....If you don't know, you should know.
The China angle is just utterly idiotic.
"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics."
I fail to see how these are related.
Same here - maybe he thinks that only bigots can be innovative?
This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible that is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen, period.
It's so obvious. If we want people to have really good ideas, then we can't rationally critique their bad ideas.
I'm also really sick of the tech world in general and VCs in particular pretending that their primary motivation isn't money.
"I've made an incredible breakthrough in theoretical physics!"
- Cool, what is it?
"I can only explain it using homophobic language."
- Wtf?
"That's just how it is. I don't make the rules."
Anil, you do realize you are behaving exactly as Sam wrote?
This thread is very, very important. Thank you, @anildash for writing it.
So @sama has articulated the way many guys in Silicon Valley feel about "free speech". It's not a very sophisticated or informed view, but it's pretty common and he's influential, so it's worth identifying why it's dangerous and wrong.
E Pur Si Muove
Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel...
blog.samaltman.com
I think this is more about people in SV shouting down alternative thinking to protect their position. It’s an insular culture and anyone working there (in tech) has it pretty good and doesn’t want to see it change. People like @sama have it so good they’re not threatened.
I thought that was excellent. Thanks for sharing. I've no idea what's dangerous or wrong about free speech.
[CN: violent anti-semitism] If you don't understand the way Altman's naivety is dangerous, read about how today's Nazis want to exploit exactly this naivety to gain recruits & push for genocide. huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-st…
No I wouldn't write a check to a Nazi. What a bizarre thing to say. Have a nice weekend.
it depends on whether it's "free speech" or "free speech". Latter is the imagined concept in which one can say anything WITHOUT any consequences, without getting criticized and everyone having to listen to you. Former simply means govt can not prevent you from talking.
and in this case article claims lack of free speech where one does not exist -- but is implicitly demanding that resulting free speech (critique) should be suppressed, otherwise important inventions by imaginary Genius Gay Haters is also suppressed
Man it was fun in like high school when I was still figuring this stuff out, but these days the debate around the conflation of legal free speech vs socially acceptable speech is SO BORING 😴
Like @sama you don't think it'll hinder coming up with novel scientific concepts if we have to relitigate whether being gay is "unnatural" every few years?
Gay mathematician here. Also we’re more sophisticated than physicists tho I find old school electrical engineers profoundly inspiring. Not sure I’ve met a gay one yet.
No, you don't get it. Free Speech is an ideal (it's also protected under the first amendment). Some people feel that ideal should be upheld, for the welfare of society. Some people, like @anildash don't.
Do you get that?
Oh so people should be able to go to their workplace and start every sentence by insulting a coworker and not expect any personal or professional repercussions? Like I could say my boss looks like the offspring of their mom and a dog, every time we spoke, and not get fired?
No, you don't get it. Free Speech is an ideal (it's also protected under the first amendment). Some people feel that ideal should be upheld, for the welfare of society. Some people, like @anildash don't.
Do you get that?
Weird, in what way is Anil Dash part of the government?
Or are you saying the government shouldn't stand in the way of you selling a product with misleading packaging and sales patter?
No, of course not. You should, however, be able to hold unpopular views without losing your job.
Try to engage with my actual argument instead of knocking down straw men, next time.
Wow, I got you from "the ideal of free speech is important" to "of course we shouldn't tolerate some speech" in ONE TWEET! Sometimes I impress even myself 😎
Your position is that the Ideal of Free Speech supercedes societal norms about what speech is appropriate, is it not?
True Free Speech, of course, requires tolerance of speech one might find repugnant, unprofessional, offensive, etc, and so the fact that you're willing to carve an exemption for something you find objectionable reveals that the Ideal of Free Speech is NOT in fact your goal here.
You're misrepresenting my position. I think it's reasonable for businesses to not tolerate some protected speech that would literally hinder day-to-day operations.
You've basically created a false binary where we either need to choose tolerance or all legally protected speech or a weird gynocentric creativity stifling torture chamber.
A typical leftist, you'd prefer to make a snarky remark and move on. Soyboys rejoice!
1. Let me start by clarifying. When we're talking about free speech we're generally talking about ideas/speech related to politics, society, religion, etc.
2. Harassment and fighting words are not protected speech. Depending on the insults, they could fall under either category.
3. That aside, those two positions -- if understood properly -- are not mutually exclusive.
- The ideal of Free Speech is important - one we should strive to uphold
- A business could not operate if it permitted all legal speech in the office
4. My hope, and what I was getting at, is that businesses respect unpopular opinions related to politics, society, religion, etc. That people don't get fired or harassed by shrieking cat ladies for non-PC tweet or voting for the wrong person.
5. I think that's a reasonable way for business to uphold the ideal of free speech to the best they are capable.
Does that make sense, brainlet?
In no sense is the idea of free speech limited to such topics. Unqualified, it's absolute; that's why we need to specifically enumerate exceptions such as threats.
I frankly don't care about free speech outside of a legal context. There should be standards of acceptable conduct.
You actually AGREE — it's just that the standards you want a lot of people have issues with, and so you cloak your argument in "free speech" rhetoric to make it more palatable. Which is — apart from being soooooo fucking transparent — the literal definition of a straw man.
Dude, you’re arguing with a guy who unironically says “soyboy”. He’s probably drinking onion juice to prove how much he’s a Real Man right now.
Dude, you literally didn't make an argument.
Go drink some soylent.
Point taken, I'll bow out 😔 sorry for blowing up your mentions
LOL it took you a full day to figure out how to download my avatar, crop it and come up with an insult that no one outside of your in group even gets?? Bravo 👏🏻 your parents must be proud
No, we fundamentally disagree. This was demonstrated in your previous tweet.
"I frankly don't care about free speech outside of a legal context."
>In no sense is the idea of free speech limited to such topics.
In the vast majority of cases dealing with free speech these are the topics under consideration.
>I don't care about free speech outside of a legal context.
Of course you don't. Free exchange of ideas horrifies you.
'Not very sophisticated' is an understatement.
This guy’s worried that calling people to account for saying racist and homophobic things might make it hard to disagree about physics?!?
This guy needs to come spend some time out here in the real world. Seriously. Come visit.
Young privileged people used to take a wanderjahr, spending time touring the continent. The globe is open to them now.
They really should just get out a bit. Not as tourists—as travelers.
Primary school level essay about free speech
I can’t decide what’s sadder: That this thread even has to be written in 2017 or that someone considers Sam influential.
I think if you don’t feel that your views are going to be well received by the broader professional/social circles you run in that means you should consider both your circles AND your opinions. It’s possible @sama is just an ass with asshole opinions...
What’s particularly ironic is that if you anti-free-speech people are ever successful in dismantling the concept, you’ll end up being the ones silenced within a few years and the “fascist” viewpoints will be the only ones left
Oh ffs. He's not anti free speech. He's saying free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. The government isn't arresting people for expressing their veiws, silicon vally bros just think they're being "oppressed" by people's (often valid) criticism.
This guy’s mindset is how you start with fun Twitter in 2006 and have it overrun with abusers and nazis and presidents threatening nuclear war in 2017.
💯 it’s called responsible capitalism. If he wants to fund Nazis but only if they have REALLY good ideas then he should be run out of town. The ends never justify the means.
That’s correct. And stop calling me Shirley.
Calling BS on that article. I recently mentioned to some Chinese people in US temporarily that many US politicians are corrupt. I asked them if it was the same in China. They remained silent, didn't even acknowledge the question.
Free speech isn’t really free when people in power use their voice to oppress the rights of others. If gays lose their marriage rights... that’s not free. It’s not hard to understand that @sama take on free speech is completely wrong. Like 💯 wrong
Hate speech is a crime in Canada. Does @sama mean to say that as a country we're stifled from innovation? That Canadians don't have a successful society?
Canada the country that millions of dollars to a terrorist? not a impresive country by the way.
I'm assuming you mean Canada that settles a multi-million dollar court battle for a fraction of what was already spent to a Canadian citizen who was abondoned for years in torcher? Who also stood up for the citizens of Venezuela? Yeah that one.
I am talking about the criminal that killed soldiers fighting beside terrorists, in Venezuela just the left wing dictatorship and their followers support terrorist groups, if a venezuelan supports terrorist i don´t give a dolar for him.
you have borscht on your collar, miss
Leftish gov,gave millions dollars to a confesed terrorist, son a terrorism supporter, but you know the poor boy was a victim #fuckednation
Poor boy was 15 when arrested and detained in torture for 8 years before "confessing" in order to get a plea deal to get out of there. Left by the Gov at the time in prison. Boy sued and won, 3 times, before gov settled for half of what he was asking and 1/4 of total court costs.
A government don't need to support a damn terrorist. The money can be send to the family of the soldier.
With 15 years old if you can kill people with grenades, you can get the punishment in a war zone
But is the thing with terrorism soft supporters, he got jail and treatment like the terrorist that is,but he was left, he wasn't a tourist kidnapped was the worst criminal type
And his father a supporter of terrorism wasn't 15 years old when helped criminal groups. But you have a government that creates laws to prosecute people that says things that offend with their speech #fuckednation
Are you really trying to change the mind of those terrorist supporters? They have the government that they deserve. #liftards
So you're saying a 15 year old should be tortured because of what his father did? Fact is all Canadians have civil rights. His were violated as decided by the courts 3 times. Prev gov spent +40M fighting it in court already and lost each time.
Not i´m not telling that, what is very obvious is that he was indoctrinated and trained for a job, to be a terrorist. It is not a situation of a poor boy kidnapped by the colombian Farc or Isis,
And yes Canadian have civil right, like free speech, but is sad that the people that want restrict the free speech with stupid laws are the same that support the apologies to terrorism.
I´m talking about Omar Khadr who killed a soldier with a grenade
Left wing party in your country supported Chavez by 16 years when he was destroying all institutions. The leader of your gov is a fan of Fidel Castro the criminal that stole millions of dollar of Venezuela.
Now they want clean the mess, 16 years later, 300.000 Venezuelan death or killed, 200 political prisoners. By the way the dictatorship here also has a hate crime law, they use it to fill jails with political prisoners
Are you counting all the Venezuelans repressed and killed by capitalists and land barons, or just blaming the politicians they democratically elected?
Money is not speech. And corporations don't play fair.
Well, Silicon Valley is in the US, not Canada.
This op-ed or whatever is frankly embarrassing. If I were @sama I would take it down ASAP. He’s basically saying innovation requires human sacrifice. It’s the pro-slavery argument. Men need ways to sacrifice others for the eventual embetterment of everyone else. So wrong
Mmm, seems a little hyperbolic.
I wanna like this 600x
Well, it is a form of censorship. It's not technically a "free speech" issue, as it's not the government trying to shut anybody up, but it can be powerful none the less. That doesn't mean that social pressure is necessarily a bad thing, but minority opinions do get quashed.
Did you even read my response? I acknowledge and a free that it is not a free speech issue involving the government.
So in the name of free speech and toward great though probably not novel ideas, let me just say @sama is a fucking moron with no even deep insight for anything of which he speaks except one time early on being good at the internet (that times over buddy)
Wait. Wouldn't have more tolerance for his speech have benefitted and protected your great grandfather?
- Why frame this as a "free speech" issue? Freedom of speech specifically makes it unlawful for the gov't to enact laws that limit it's citizenry's right to "speech."
Both you and @sama are talking about the right to talk openly about ideas (hurtful or otherwise)
People are permitted to talk openly about ideas in the US, hurtful or otherwise. What many bigots want is the right to be openly hateful without any consequences. That's bullshit.
I only meant to call out that you have an excellent point but that acknowledging that one side calls it "free speech" even in a casual context is unnecessarily divisive. It makes it seem like the sides are for/against free speech.
It's about saying things without consequence.
Isn't Sam's argument basically rallying behind the "brilliant jerks" that Arianna was saying we have to stop protecting and glorifying? Shorter Sam: "The Google manifestbro shouldn't have been fired for being a dick because he can code ok"
Well I’ve never heard of him.
I'm fascinated to know what these 'controversial ideas' are.
I think we already know, and they suck.
You forgot to tell us it's "problematic," too.
As always, @anildash is more eloquent and clear than I could ever be. Please read this thread.
So @sama has articulated the way many guys in Silicon Valley feel about "free speech". It's not a very sophisticated or informed view, but it's pretty common and he's influential, so it's worth identifying why it's dangerous and wrong.
E Pur Si Muove
Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel...
blog.samaltman.com
I read it. Perhaps I don't have the whole context, but I agree with @sama. I don't understand what's wrong with what he said. Even if there's something wrong… it's just his opinion.
Have to say I completely disagree with your analysis of Sam's post.
excellent apologetics for cultural totalitarianism here. great work
I'm struggling with 2 questions:
1- can we/shoudl we separate people's jobs from their political/religious/ethical... positions
2- if not, compliance is to be enforced on what topics ? sexual preferences ? religion ? skin color ? animal rights ? climate change ? ... ?
Also, private or public positions. Is a bigot OK as long as he stays mum about it, or shoudl we investigate everyone ?
Part of the problem is, at what point does deviation from the accepted position turn into "bigotry", "racism", "misogyny", etc. I think the 5% number was pretty close. Think of James Damore, Brendan Eich, Peter Thiel.
The issue isn’t free speech, it’s Nazi motherf******s recruiting and people dying. I’d say ask Heather Heyer about this idiotic absolutism.... but she’s dead.
Please stop referring to any sort of normative constraint as “political correctness.” Refute instead of merely attempting to discredit as “group think.“