I find this parallel interesting. I definitely have "fanboys" (I cringe at the term, but it's what pg uses, so I'll be consistent) who drive me crazy with their complete lack of critical thinking about my work -- I can see obvious flaws in many things I do, but they apparently can't -- but I can't think of anyone whom I would describe as hating me. Plenty of people ignore me, of course -- but that's quite different f…
I've encountered people online who seem to be irrationally upset and negative about scrypt. Maybe you have proxy-haters?
Haters
81–90 of 308 posts
Re: Haters
#82To me this is such a toxic post. Using sentences like: "He's less than a man" and "Haters are generally losers" - to me shows an unhealthy level of grandiosity, and an inability to fully understand another person's experience. Yes this article might help you deal with some stuff, but it's also not scalable and avoids examining the underlying deep rooted societal inequities that cause these addictive behaviors in peop…
For example, I know an Elon hater (not a critic, a hater). And I tried to understand it, but after asking questions it’s clear that the answers made no sense and they were trying to post-hoc rationalise their emotions. Sure, Elon has done bad things, but overall I’d say he is a net positive for the world. That is not to say we should condone everything he’s done or give him a free pass, but it is to say that the negatives do not cancel out the positives. He is not all bad, and he does not deserve haters (this is not the same as being beyond criticism).
Anyway, the hater I know is pretty privileged, and as Paul speculated really quite talented in some ways. I would also say they have underachieved in their own eyes. And that may be where the hate stems from.
Why did they underachieve? Perhaps lack of commitment and discipline, from my best knowledge. Interestingly, earlier in life they were also a fanboy of some things that may have harmed their career, by influencing their choices in a negative way. That also ties in with Paul’s essay.
I think it’s this type of person PG is labelling as haters and losers. Not people who have had traumatic experiences or very difficult lives.
I agree “loser” isn’t a mature or good choice of term, and ironically I think this is a sign of an emotional reaction from PG - but I empathise with that emotional reaction.
If you want to make the world better and are positive and optimistic, haters can drive you nuts. It’s like - “ok, I get it, you aren’t on the same page or you don’t like me - but please at the very least just ignore me rather than constantly criticise everything single thing I do without rationale. I’m just trying to help the world a bit, whilst you are doing nothing. I’m not asking you to be like me and devote your life to something - just to leave me alone.”
As a good example, consider Greta Thunberg. Regardless of your opinion of her, she is out there every day campaigning for a proper response to climate change. In doing so, she’s devoting her life to helping (even saving) all of us, trying to ensure that when your grandkids grow up they’re not living in some godawful scenario. And then her reward is so much hatred and vitriol from people who aren’t in prison living a terrible life with psychological scars - but rather from perfectly comfortable middle class haters. I can imagine sometimes she must sit down at the end of a hard day and think “what the hell is the point trying to help these people? Why do I even bother?”
(Defending PG here, but I’m not a fanboy. Used to love a lot of his writing, now dislike it more than I like it when I learnt more about the reality of startups and VC. Have really disliked a lot of his recent writing but as a very positive optimistic person I really don’t like the hater culture so this resonated with me).
Re: Haters
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these people are way too interested in what other people are doing oh yes, blame them! the lazy buggers! [1][2] [1] https://medium.com/@dr_eprice/laziness-does-not-exist-3af27e... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-2TEwdRnX0 edit: avoid Medium paywall on [1] = http://archive.is/ksROw
I did not write this as a casting of blame. Merely as an observation. One can observe that having a broken leg is not optimal for locomotion without blaming the person who is in that condition.
I believe this story is incredibly harmful because it doesn't help 'non-participants’ or 'spectators’, as you call them, understand the limitations of their society, and how this impacts them. One of the things I'd like to do instead is to help show them (and anyone else who is interested in reflection or meaningful social change) how these systemic inequities are often slowly grinding them down, and how they can organize to change the system. If I don't help do this I think I might doom them to a life of self-loathing, not to mention that I myself would live in a world of self-masturbatory self-aggrandizement, not really connecting to others and relying instead on my perceived superiorty for comfort and safety; which I think starts to taste bitter if used as a strategy for a long enough period of time.
Don't see the inequities I am talking about? I promise you they are there when you start looking. Some of the ones I've found most glaring are (1) the systemic racism at home in the US, (2) the ongoing battles of the Global South against Global North-controlled extractive and exploitative debt, and (3) imperialistic Intellectual Property agreements which causes ongoing local and global information asymmetries. The bravery of the men and women who have been fighting in these battles is astounding: Audre Lorde, Bell Hooks, Cornel West, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Sankara, W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Howard Zinn, MLK, Paulo Freire, Cedric Robinson, and many more.
Besides Anand Giridharadas and Rutger Bregman, a recent example of someone doing this important work is Law Professor Mehrsa Baradaran, author of 'The Color of Money’. There is a great summary of her arguments here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/banking-against-black-ca...
I think these are some noteworthy excerpts:
"The problem is, black capitalism has not improved the economic lives of black people, and Baradaran deftly explains the reasons why. Black people were systematically excluded from New Deal policies, including the subsidized FHA mortgages that proved fundamental in increasing white wealth, through redlining and racial covenant agreements. Where black banks did exist, they were consistently less well funded, less profitable, and made fewer loans than white banks, rendering them powerless to substantially improve the prospects of black community members. And herein lies one of the most important lessons of The Color of Money — over the course of American history, white economic success has often been subsidized by black dollars, rather than the other way around."
and:
"Even as Baradaran criticizes the implementation of black capitalism, she claims several times that the reason black banking does not succeed in lifting black people out of poverty is that the mechanisms of free-market capitalism were blocked from proper functioning by the “structural inequalities” of racism, as if these existed outside and apart from capitalism, and infected it. Racism made capitalism sick, and if we could fix the former, the latter would deliver equal benefits to all. And yet, one can take the historical evidence she presents to argue something quite different: racism is embedded in the foundations of American capitalism."
Re: Haters
#84sometimes it seems like on this site 80 percent of people fall in one of those categories for someone like elon musk. for trump it’s like 99 pct. it’s a shame people can’t just be objective and call out good/bad
> sometimes it seems like on this site 80 percent of people fall in one of those categories for someone like elon musk. for trump it’s like 99 pct. it’s a shame people can’t just be objective and call out good/bad I actually, uncharacteristically, disagree with a lot of what Paul Graham has said about fans and haters. His basic premise is that we should judge people/endeavors based on critical thinking and solid metr…
I think the best thing to do with someones vision is try and prove it instead of tear it down. In business the only real show stoppers are, doesn't work, doesn't pencil out[1], no customers/potential customers have no money.
[1] On the other hand see Uber. Maybe you can win with two out of three even.
Re: Haters
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just taking a perspective publically on something fairly innocuous such as which is the best programming language I wouldn't call that innocuous at all! Quite the opposite, this is the perfect topic for flame war: people tend to have the same kind of emotional attachment to their favorite programming language as to their favorite sport team. You can't really expect a moderate debate on that kind of topics…
That attachment is exactly what PG is talking about. Irrational support.
Re: Haters
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if it is rarer, or that haters are caused by a reaction to fanboys? Most ventures fail. Startup ventures fail even more often. If your goal was to be right most often, you would just bet that every new thing would fail. So there's something inherently illogical about being a fanboy about anything. A fanboy is definitely doing more than just looking at the odds and making a rational decision, they are putti…
I don't think this matches the behavior in many areas. Look at Apple fanboys. They seem to cause haters because of their uncritical boosting of anything Apple. (Also PG's essay seemed mostly about fanboys and haters of people, not of a particular startup)
Apple haters have a point: Apple hardware is far more expensive than similar performance on other systems. So using a traditional objective metric such as performance per dollar, Apple is objectively worse.
However, most Apple Fanboys know they are paying a premium. They love Apple for other, less quantifiable reasons, such as design quality, beautiful integration, good marketing, and the vision of making a more human machine.
The metrics that Apple fanboys value are at complete odds with many traditional computer enthusiasts, who value specs and raw performance power.
Therefore, a "fanboy" of anything (whether that's Apple, Tesla, or the startup of the day), is not necessarily being uncritical, they are just using less commonly accepted metrics of value.
Re: Haters
#87the tone of this article didn't seem to bother PG & friends at all! but it clearly bothered some of us...
Re: Haters
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post clearly ignores the use of any form of sensitive language, which in this case I thought helped to illustrate the points quite well. Personally, I can’t imagine calling somebody a loser, but in my head I have a very clear idea of what a loser is. To me a loser is anybody that, in spite of the opportunity to do so, doesn’t take any control over their own life, doesn’t take responsibility for themselves, and bl…
The notion of control over one's life is elusive. Our futures can be wrought by trauma, poverty and the lottery that is our DNA, and by extension, our brain. Given the randomness/contingency Graham acknowledges explains his and others' success, and by implication the various dependencies en route to that success, I'd just ask for a bit more compassion for those, whether through birth or circumstance, find themselves…
> in spite of the opportunity to do so
I am talking about people who have opportunities they don’t take, so the spiel about circumstances is pretty off topic. In my comment I also made no reference to outcomes. I was specifically describing an approach to life. Anybody, even the most low agency circumstances, can choose how they approach life.
Re: Haters
#89To me this is such a toxic post. Using sentences like: "He's less than a man" and "Haters are generally losers" - to me shows an unhealthy level of grandiosity, and an inability to fully understand another person's experience. Yes this article might help you deal with some stuff, but it's also not scalable and avoids examining the underlying deep rooted societal inequities that cause these addictive behaviors in peop…
Re: Haters
#90"A Plan For Haters And Fanboys".
I will try to apply to it to myself
---
Well I am clearly an hater, because I think that Paul Graham says a lot of stupid shit on subjects where he lacks the ability to empathize with the real victims, like many people who are male, white, powerful, well-connected and who can basically accomplish whatever the fuck they want to accomplish. Why don't all those poor victims just do the same, right?
This inflated ego leads him to be a jerk more often than necessary, and write things that are obviously wrong (but not for him) on some subjects where he is a like a snowflake who thinks he is the real victim being attacked. A bit like all those Trump voters who think that the problem with racism in the USA is that white people like them are being unfairly critized as being a racist.
At that point, the Paul Grahan classifier has all the necessary signals to classify me as an hater.
----
On the other hand...
I am obviously a fanboy because I genuinely believe that Paul Graham is a very generous, bright mind who has worked a lot and helped thousands of people.
I know for a fact that he has helped me a lot, I've read pretty much everything he wrote and was nodding furiously all of the time. I can tell you my ten favorites articles from him.
Well actually, let's do it. I really liked
- "Lisp for web-based applications" - "A plan for span" - "If Lisp is So Great" - "What You Can't Say" - "The Python Paradox" - "The Age of the Essay" - "How to Start a Startup" - "What I did this summer?" - "You weren't meant to have a boss" - "Ramen Profitable" - "Startup = Growth""H - "Do Things That Don't Scale" - "Default Alive Or Default Dead?"
Oops, I told 13 instead of 10, and I had to force myself to stop here.
That's what fanboys do.
---
In summary, I understand the tentation to have "A Plan For Fanboys/Haters" like he had a "Plan For Spam".
Frankly that would be nice if that was possible, I would buy it, just say your price.
But I'm starting to think that real human beings are more complex than this nice dichotomy.
I think Paul Graham is like a normal human being, with wonderful parts and deep flaws, pretty much like all of us.
That leads him to be right and helpful on a lot of subjects, and also to be wrong and a jerk on other topics.
Since he is a bright guy, he would have no problems to discover why he was wrong, if he applied his own principles to those topics.
And he would apply his own principles if he was interested.
His output being deeply wrong shows that he is not interested right now by those topics.
Ok, fine.