111–120 of 308 posts
They may have achieved great things in one area but in other areas they are somewhat average and very much like us. Anxiety, doubts, misdeeds, regrets, emotions etc.
Like pg is great but he’s also not a god. Don’t treat him like one. We’d prolly be disappointed. He’s said a fair share of crap as well some very insightful things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ho…
Not the OP but as I grew older I started to realize that calling someone a “loser” (seen as bad) just because they haven’t “achieved” much is simply not ok, it only helps to prolong this (I think unhealthy) state of affairs where everyone should be seen as doing something, anything, preferably something “productive”.
I think that a majority of the people who post on HN are ambitious people who have such contributions as a very central part of their identity. Many people here might unfairly judge someone who works a part-time job, mostly watches Netflix in their spare time and is generally a good person in most interpersonal exchanges. And there's certainly a lot of people here who would judge themselves if that's all they did.
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…
I get your point, but I would guess that PG would not think of those people as losers or as haters. 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 t…
Come on, this is ridiculous. She’s a political entrepreneur. She has her goals and values and they stand in direct opposition to those of others. She’s fighting effectively for them and they hate her for the threat to them she represents. In that she’s no different to Friedman or Krugman, or among elected officials to Trump or AOC. She put on her big girl pants and got into the political arena. When you do that and you’re good at it people are going to hate you. That’s humanity. People hate their enemies. People hate those who want to take things from them, or who say that they are bad or what they want is bad.
People don’t hate technocrats and engineers who propose keyhole solutions to climate change. They hate peoples who want to take b their nice big houses, their cars, their international holidays. Nobody hates Project Vesta, and they have a workable plan to reverse all CO2 emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution for a mere 1.7% of global GDP.
That said, there is one other aspect worth commenting on: the "nearly successful" kind of hater. Yes, they absolutely exist. Academe is particularly full of them. The reason, I think, is simple: some people resent those they compete with. For that kind of person, that means the people right next to them in whatever real or imagined ranking. Those further above or below are irrelevant, and not worth hating.
The other key (subtweeting a bit myself here) is that some people invite this particular kind of hate. They exaggerate any difference between themselves and those they have barely outdone. They hotly deny the role of luck or privilege in achieving their status, more often than pg seems (or wants) to think. Psychologically, they mirror others' envy with a desire to reaffirm their position in a race they know could have gone either way. There's a bond between the haters and the hated, and often both sides participate.
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…
Your point seems to be though that we need to understand haters more (and if pg's thesis is correct, fanboys). I agree that as social planners, we do need to see why they arise, what their background is, and how social media amplifies it. But that's a big topic and pg doesn't even claim to address that.
By analogy, when you are being attacked by a hater, like many famous people, I don't think social planning is your first order response. Much like if someone were to hold you up with a gun, your immediate response wouldn't be a reflection of the societal conditions of the assailant.
Also, I'm curious whether you'd think this post would be equally toxic if pg only addressed fanboys: "Some fans slavishly love you. It's probably best to ignore them." Is that toxic? Does that generate a similar call-to-action to see why some people are so uncritical?
Now in this essay he is catching more criticism in the comments here than I expected.
1. For calling someone a loser. I interpreted this to be an act of the will. I can't imagine Paul Graham calling someone a loser who is trying his best.
2. For using the phrase "less than a man." A man is a mature boy. I interpreted this as a pithy way to say that someone is immature, and again by choice.
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…
You're taking two sentences out of context here. pg's main point is that haters are just fanboys with the sign flipped, whereas your critique seems to just hone in on the two least politically-correct sounding sentences. Both sentences could have be massaged to be more PC but less direct, and the original thesis would still stand. Your point seems to be though that we need to understand haters more (and if pg's thesi…
Your analogy seems inapplicable here. This was an essay, not an immediate response. Whatever we may think of the response, it seems fair to put it down as the well-considered position of the author, unless they retract it later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.