Live data from Hacker News

Haters

paulgraham.com

91–100 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#91
This was an interesting post and it hit home, although not in a good way (because it caused me to reflect on my own instances of hating on individuals). Although I'm not sure reality is quite so simple -- take Trump's irrational hatred of Obama, with the whole 'birther' thing being an example of fomenting hater mobs against him. But he eventually succeeded at becoming the president himself. And he seems to have his own haters; I mean people who beyond rightly recognizing that he is a terrible president and need to spend all their waking hours on reddit's r/politics cracking jokes about the orange dude.

I am also reminded of Rene Girard's notion of a scapegoat mechanism - perhaps the object of people's irrational hate is a kind of scapegoat to those people

Re: Haters

#92

To 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…

How would you express the central point? Or is it the central point that you disagree with, or feel is "toxic"? (I dislike that word, because it's one of those words that has a tendency to shut down rational discussion).

On a certain level, I probably agree with you. The word 'loser' dehumanizes people by focusing on their lack of achievements that society cares about, and achievements or agency in their own life.

How do they feel about this state of things? Probably not so good. Why did this happen, and what can they do about it? Well, maybe they're stuck in a shitty situation due to a confluence of psychological or even medical factors that's largely outside of their control. Maybe they're deserving of a break, some sympathy or a helping hand.

But if a person (who might or might not be in this situation) happens to behave destructively towards others, it's possible to discuss that while still acknowledging the points above.

Maybe 'loser' and 'less than a man' is an insensitive way to express it, which is why I was asking how you would express the central point. I think that "Ignore the haters, they're just fanboys with the sign flipped and not important" is sound advice to someone who tries to keep their sanity while attempting to do something good under a massive amount of scrutiny and criticism (some founded, most unfounded).

I don't think we have to go so far to see examples of famous people that would have been much less stressed, had less problems and kept their focus if they'd been able to follow this advice in times of extreme stress. A couple of Elon Musk's famed Twitter episodes come to mind, if you're looking for examples.

Even though famous people are in a position of privilege, they're still humans and have to endure the same emotional reactions as the rest of us. Usually amplified, since they get such a massive amount of attention. I think it's valuable to give them some coping tips.

Re: Haters

#94

I thought the article was interesting, but this footnote left me cold: “How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? ... Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by [frauds]“ The world is full of “thoughtful” people who have been taken in by frauds - Theranos is a recent example - and so I think this is pretty terrible advice in general - although I can see how it m…

> The world is full of “thoughtful” people who have been taken in by frauds - Theranos is a recent example

Even more recently, "John Carmack and Amazon's $30 1TB thumb drives"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22018782

> For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.

It also works where smart people are experts in the field the fraud operates. One of the greatest frauds in science was one where an archaeologist ( amateur ) duped the experts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Sometimes, in banking, finance and fine art, the scammers scam the experts in banking, finance and fine art.

Re: Haters

#95
post #27

> [1] There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. I don't think that "some thoughtful people who l…

> defended (or not even questioned) by media coverage and big name personalities.

Those aren't examples of "thoughtful people".

Re: Haters

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re massively misinterpreting what I said. > 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.

> Anybody, even the most low agency circumstances, can choose how they approach life.

That is a very common ideology around these parts (and also in the US), but it is simply not true. We are constrained by our mental health in how we can choose to approach life, and our mental health is partly due to genetic lottery and partly due to environmental circumstances outside of our control. This is not my opinion, scientific studies are massively (as you would say) in agreement with what I claim here.

The American obsession with "winner" and "losers" is just an excuse to be selfish and cruel. Its fruits are extreme economic equality, school shootings and people dying of easily curable diseases because they don't have money for the treatment (or even the ambulance to the hospital).

Re: Haters

#97
Silicon Valley is simply preparing itself for the immense blowback it will receive when this whole operation unravels financially...again.

Re: Haters

#99
post #15
post #3

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 think #3 is spot on; if you have a small amount of fame, especially in a niche area, there are people whose lives and work you'll impact enough for them to think really highly of you. But that kind of fame doesn't really garner enough envy for people to develop much of a hatred toward you. Also, when someone badmouths a really famous person, that badmouthing can get some traction on its own just from the namedroppi…

> Also, when someone badmouths a really famous person, that badmouthing can get some traction on its own just from the namedropping. When someone badmouths a niche-famous person, it's hard to get much traction. So their envy/ hatred doesn't really go anywhere.

I feel this is very important point pg didn't consider in his essay. The degree of fame one has amplifies the fanboyism and hate they receive, because the more famous someone is, the more status can a fan or hater get with their peers by displaying obsession about said celebrity.

Re: Haters

#100
post #76
post #61

What I see here as a huge problem is (and not only in this article) that the word hater is used to disqualify a genuine and true criticism with good fundamental basis. Haters gonna hate, right? In todays society pop culture is what is mainstream: think positive, smile, listen songs that dont mean anything but are also not hurting anyone, be happy, even if something is negative concentrate on positive (X company is ad…

I think you missed the point. Graham is explicitly not using hater to disqualify genuine criticism but to identify people whose hate is irrational, who can't be reasoned with. Obviously it's a risk that someone can dismiss genuine criticism as hate (and people do this all the time), but that's not what Graham's advocating here.

Who decides what is "genuine criticism" and what is "hate"?

To the person receiving criticism, everything is hate. Look at pg's twitter on Tesla: doesn't understand the hate. Has he read the criticism and refuted it? No, he dismisses it.

Post reply on HN