Live data from Hacker News

The Two Kinds of Moderate

paulgraham.com

261–270 of 382 posts

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure okay but you do expect someone somewhere to debate you on it. That the forum ends up being hackernews isn't really significant to me visavis your opinion that some published writing could be free from debate. > It sucks having to be careful about what you because of what other people will do with it, and the weird debates you'll be forced into as a result.

I have just the tiniest sliver of Paul Graham's innate valence with HN, but it's enough to make me pretty empathetic about this problem: there is a pretty strong chance that if I blog something relatively superficial (just because it's on my mind), someone will submit it here. A throwaway I wrote about Javascript Cryptography has been on the front page here something like 5 times, and I've felt like I had to apologiz…

i'm not being obtuse but why don't you simply unpublish the post? whatever the reason is (whatever the tangible/intangible benefits conferred upon you for having it remain up) obligates you in direct proportion.

i write math notes for myself that i only publish to a public github repo. the repo is public because it lends me some credibility to have it on display that i study math. if there's an error in them and someone chances upon them and internalizes that error then i am (to a small extent) culpable.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#262
> and the far right and far left are roughly equally wrong.

This is a flat assertion with no evidential backing whatsoever solely meant to make the sayer feel better about not challenging incorrect beliefs.

If history is a guide, the middle are very rarely on the correct side of a divisive issue when all the dust settles.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#263
What a delightfully garbage take!

Also:

“The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. You don't get to pick and choose.”

PG has clearly never encountered two leftists in the same room together. We argue on critical issues more than a thanksgiving dinner table.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#265
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intentional moderate" = High Broderism, or at least the popular understanding of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Broder http://pressthink.org/2010/06/clowns-to-the-left-of-me-joker... The above has this quote, which sums it up nicely: > Journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to… Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the “halfway point between the best and the w…

I think this is a good summary of why meeting in the middle is a poor excuse for balance. The average isn't the ideal middle, as almost nothing fits the average. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/

Exactly. This is especially true in the context of contemporary US Politics, where the average between the Democrats and Republicans is way right of the political center.

In any case, I guess it all comes down to this:

“A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”

-Larry David

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#266
post #16

As a British moderate conservative, the differences between US and UK (arguably European) politics are fascinating. What moderate means is so different. For reference I’m a lifelong conservative voter that grew up under Maggie Thatcher. We do have a middle of the road Liberal Democrat party, but to my mind they maintain their position in the middle ground by dodging the hard issues. They are intentional moderates in…

> So I can’t support the Republicans because they are immoral jerks who are selling out democracy, undermining the rule of law and sold out on their international security position for partisan posturing long before Trump showed up. And I can’t support the Democrats any more because they are indulging in crazy leftist economic fantasies.

Bang-on 100% accurate. It's a bunch of immoral jerks versus a bunch of fantastical hooey.

Add to that a difference in rhetorical style: Republicans skirmish aggressively and keep their commentary "on message," while Democrats tend to virtue signal and use identity politics to galvanize their followers.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#267
post #35

>the far right and far left are roughly equally wrong. I don't think you can reduce political arguments to who is "right" and who is "wrong". Politics and moral questions are not mathematical problems. We fundamentally don't all agree on what the final outcome (of a society, of life) should be. Maybe 99% of us can agree with something like "happiness" or "peace", but those are way too vague and the devil's in the det…

1. Just because we don't agree on the answer doesn't mean that there is no correct answer. If there are no correct or incorrect policies then there is no need to vote.

2. There is strong agreement on lots of things:

95 percent disapprove of people using cell phones in movie theaters. (Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel Poll, 2014)

97 percent believe there should be laws against texting while driving. (The New York Times/CBS News Poll, 2009)

96 percent have a positive impression of small business. (Gallup Poll, 2016)

95 percent believe employers should not be able to access the DNA of their employees without permission. (Time/CNN/Yankelovich Partners Poll, 1998)

95 percent support laws against money laundering involving terrorism. (Washington Post Poll, 2001)

95 percent think doctors should be licensed. (Private Initiatives & Public Values, 1981)

95 percent would support going to war if the United States were invaded. (Harris Survey, 1971)

96 percent oppose legalizing crystal meth. (CNN/ORC International Poll, 2014)

95 percent are satisfied with their friends. (Associated Press/Media General Poll, 1984)

95 percent say that “if a pill were available that made you twice as good looking as you are now, but only half as smart,” they would not take it. (Men’s Health Work Survey, 2000)

98 percent believe adults should watch swimmers rather than reading or talking on the phone. (American Red Cross Water Safety Poll, 2013)

99 percent think it’s wrong for employees to steal expensive equipment from their workplace. (NBC News Poll, 1995)

95 percent think it’s wrong to pay someone to do a term paper for you. (NBC News Poll, 1995)

98 percent would like to see a decline in hunger in the world. (Harris Survey, 1983)

97 percent would like to see a decline in terrorism and violence. (Harris Survey, 1983)

98% would like to see an end to high unemployment. (Harris Survey, 1982)

95 percent would like to see an end to all wars. (Harris Survey, 1981)

95 percent would like to see a decline in prejudice. (Harris Survey, 1977)

95 percent don’t believe Magic 8 Balls can predict the future. (Shell Poll, 1998)

96 percent think the Olympics are a great sports competition. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution Poll, 1996)

(source How To Monroe 2019, by way of https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-win-an-election/)

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#268

Ah yes, the old "No one thinks for themselves except people like me" argument. > openly being an accidental moderate requires the most courage of all If he thinks that having middle-of-the-road opinions requires the most courage of them all, he has had an extraordinarily easily life in which he is used to be hailed as brilliant. It seems as though due to his comfortable position in life he has never faced any signifi…

> I cannot imagine how you'd come to the conclusion that holding moderate viewpoints requires any real courage at all. Expressing moderate opinions on the internet will cause a lot of people of accusing you of being a "fence-sitter" or siding with "the enemy", as well as accusations that you are a coward by people who are agitated that the opinions they hold in such high regard are not shared and are even challenged.…

Yes, and if you think posting something people are going to disagree with on Twitter takes a great deal of courage, you are probably not used to holding any very controversial beliefs at all.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PG quote that leads the essay on the topic of PG's extra-curricular rangings ("Dabblers and Blowhards") seems apposite: 'I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it' https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm Edit: the essay its…

I want to be careful not to criticize the post on its own terms. Paul Graham should totally write things like this on his own site! It sucks having to be careful about what you because of what other people will do with it, and the weird debates you'll be forced into as a result. I'm just saying, to the extent this post is political, it's political in a totally routine way that doesn't clear the "interestingness" bar…

> Paul Graham should totally write things like this on his own site!

He sure can, but having a platform and competence in one area doesn't mean your skill applies to another. This whole article is a fascinating example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

The idea, of two kinds of moderates is interesting. The framing is, at best weak and at worst very flawed, shallow and a gross oversimplification.

The shots at the left, at marxists, are palatable. At no point does this article take a genuinely "moderate" stance on the current political climate. Rather it takes an insidious right leaning view.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity…

And interestingly, CPLX seems to be doing exactly what the article talked about. PG said something, and CPLX wouldn't listen to what it actually said , because it came from one of those rich people, and they couldn't possibly have anything honest and true to say. This is CPLX not actually considering PG's opinion for what it is, but for how it fits in CPLX's already-existing framework.

I mean I think he’s being honest. He’s saying that he is looking at a system in which he’s literally amassed billions of dollars and doesn’t see any reason for sudden changes. He’s just not interested in exploring how those two facts interact.

What I am hopefully pointing out is that he could be doing a better job of trying to understand why people who are literally living in misery and despair might be seeking more radical change. The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated.

It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources, and that he’s literally doing that. Of course he doesn’t have to agree that this is in fact the greatest problem today, but he could at least note that many of the people he’s supposedly analyzing do believe this.

He’s almost certainly capable of having a more nuanced discussion that recognizes his own position and perspective, but is choosing not to do that. This isn’t an academic treatise it’s a personal essay about his own subjective impressions, and he’s leaving out the most important aspect of his own lived experience.

You might even call that omission intentional

Post reply on HN