[dnfa]

> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here

Yeah this bothered me. His stance on this seems so defensive and personal and he gives very few examples of heretical ideas. It makes this essay more of a boomer diatribe than anything else imo.

[UncleMeat]

It allows anybody who reads the piece to apply their own specifics to it. It means that if they hold any "heretical" beliefs, they can assume that PG supports them.

[plorkyeran]

Or on the flip side, it means that the reader can assume that PG holds whatever unflattering "heretical" beliefs they are opposed to.

[UncleMeat]

I'm not sure that's true. There's enough insinuation here that I don't think that my grandma would assume PG is advocating for anti-religiosity, for example.

[morelisp]

On the other hand, you can spot Andreessen, Haidt, and Lehmann as his reviewers (and similar personalities on previous articles) and have a pretty good idea what views he's actually talking about.

[giraffe_lady]

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

[paisawalla]

Not even 500px away from here, there's this exchange from you, contradicting your clever tweet:

> Can [ignoring ideas I don't like] get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law?

> If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. [Context: "We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others."]

[deanCommie]

Note: Twitter replies and suggestions are sorted according to it's recommendation engine.

So what you see 500px away might not be visible to other readers.

[giraffe_lady]

What's the contradiction here I don't see it?

[paisawalla]

"Republicans aren't getting cancelled for describing their political policies, they're getting cancelled for being racist or x-phobic"

but then,

"It is an utter moral necessity to not extend civility to or engage with Republicans on issues like healthcare or police reform, but instead do everything necessary to prevent their ideas from being heard or discussed."

I'm sure your next point is that everything conservatives believe reduces to wrongthink x-isms, and therefore everything is permissible, and you probably are unable even then to see the inconsistency. But it seems like others have taken note.

[giraffe_lady]

Oh, I see how you could read it that way, yes. Here let me refute some of these assumptions:

- I don't assert that opposing these things is a moral necessity for everyone, but do find it so for myself.

- I extend civility usually but not always, it depends on the circumstances. If being uncivil furthers my goals or feels correct then I will do it.

- I don't oppose "republicans" generally but I oppose specific harmful acts, including speech in some instances. "Engagement with" is too broad: I'm willing to (and do!) have coffee and discuss any issue privately, but may vehemently oppose the same conversation happening as a public debate, for example.

- Absolutely not everything is permissible and there are many more lines I won't cross than ones I will.

Just for a concrete example, if you read through my history a little you'll notice I fucking hate the police. What you wouldn't guess is my home AA group is all cops except for me. Many years ago I needed help and didn't realize that's what it was and they helped me and I stayed. None of us hide any part of ourselves there. There are men I have opposed in armed conflict in the street and then met with mutual love and grace in the room.

I see very clearly the humanity of my enemies but nonetheless find I must oppose them. I am rarely truly sure I'm on the right path, but I feel compelled to act and I hope for forgiveness for my mistakes and harms.

[paisawalla]

I misjudged you by the looks of it, so I apologize for that.

[nullc]

The tweet suggests the views targeted to are not ones related to taxation, government spending, or regulation-- standard fiscally conservative stuff. In its own act of conspicuous omission the tweet implies the censored views are obviously abhorrent ones. A later reply says the quiet part out loud, referring to the views of whiny conservatives as "racist views, misogynistic views, or xenophobic views".

Your comment states-- "I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them" to "get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law".

I think it's unclear to me precisely what you're saying here, but I can see how it can be read as saying you seek to silence fiscal conservatives who oppose state funded healthcare or other government support.

If your comment had not included an apparent example of a question of public policy that had little to do with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, or similar I suspect the person you're responding to wouldn't have seen any conflict.

[giraffe_lady]

Yeah, I do see it now, thanks.

I still think it depends on certain assumptions about my positions and why I hold them. Like, I oppose market-based healthcare access because it causes injustice, death, and suffering on a large scale. To me that is very consistent with opposing eg racism because it causes injustice, suffering and death.

I did, honestly, momentarily forget that this state of affairs is the status quo and so probably has wider explicit support than the others. It's all part of the same hell to me though.