Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Haters

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#161

Post by qbrs »

jeffdavis wrote: post #152

This essay does not read like an intellectual piece at all. Poorly defined terms, labeling people, non-falsifiable psychoanalysis. And to top it off he calls both labeled groups of people "less than men". All of this setup to deliver the profound advice to just ignore them. (Before people call me a "hater", note that I strictly do not meet the definition, because I like a lot of his essays.)

Yes, his definition of "hater" seems to be "a person who always disagrees with him or questions his success", whereas occasional disagreement just carries the "troll" label.

It is not very clever to write an essay like this in the abstract without naming concrete instances of "hating".

If the essay targets certain political activists on Twitter, sure, but pg has a history of calling Arc critics "trolls".

Re: Haters

#162

Post by lazyant »

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #159
lazyant wrote: post #154

Somehow related, for non-US people, do you ever use or heard/read the term "loser" (or direct translation)? My hypothesis is that it's a very American concept, as in I don't remember ever anyone outside the US/Canada use that word (same with "winner"). Like in Europe or South America for ex people would say somebody is a deadbeat or terrible at their job or lazy but not a loser (this may be just in my head).

At least in the Netherlands, the word "loser" (in english) is used quite often.

thanks, -1 for my hypothesis. Well not totally, the fact that the original English word is used (instead of a Dutch one) is also telling.

Re: Haters

#164

Post by [deleted] »

rossdavidh wrote: post #132
SethTro wrote: 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…

Basically yes, but it should be said that John Carreyrou didn't act like a hater. Perhaps a better test is, that a thoughtful person thinks y is a fraud, whereas more or less by definition a hater does not come across as a thoughtful person.

[deleted]

Re: Haters

#166

Post by zemo »

> haters are just fanboys with the sign bit flipped makes it much easier to deal with them. ... The most important [technique] is simply not to think much about them.

this reads like a justification for ignoring criticism by attributing the criticizing party to being a hater.

Re: Haters

#167

Post by mannykannot »

littlestymaar wrote: post #37
benjaminwootton wrote: post #17

I setup a business which had a reasonable amount of success, and the amount and commitment of some of the haters was a real shock to me. Just taking a perspective publically on something fairly innocuous such as which is the best programming language seemed to attract something much more aggressive than the usual debate because I had a bit of a perceived expertise. I had a handful of people follow me online commentin…

> 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…

It is possible to have a moderate debate over strongly-held opinions, so long as everyone is capable of and willing to distinguish between facts and opinions, and agree to differ over the latter. In discussions over which is the 'best' programming language, you can find examples going this way, and examples turning into flame wars. Only the former are worth following.

Re: Haters

#168

Post by crusso »

This is one of those cases where I try really hard to set my preconceptions aside. I'm not famous. I'm not a thought leader. I don't maintain a "public persona" on social media. If I have a couple of twitter followers, I figure they're just some kind of bot or spammer.

PG is likely dealing with a phenomenon that most of us have no personal experience with.

All I can do is try to embrace his understanding to get an insight because I have no idea what it's like to have some stranger obsess about me for good or ill.

I notice some people commenting here who seem to think that trolls and people who dislike you casually are the same as the "haters" PG is writing about. I don't think they are.

Re: Haters

#169

Post by replyguy912 »

diego wrote: post #150
darkerside wrote: post #123

> Could a hater be cured if they achieved something impressive? My guess is that it's a moot point, because they never will. Couldn't disagree with this more. There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation. PG is making the fundamental attribution error here. Only the most cursory glance could imply that haters are never successful. If you followed individual haters, you…

The world is full of haters accomplishing impressive things, particularly in politics. Edit: if you define "impressive" as "something a hater could not do" and "not impressive" as notorious things haters do, then I understand downvoting this comment. But that's begging the question.

I agree - I consider the current president both a hater and accomplisher of impressive things.

down-voters should interpret impressive as "making an impression" not "something really good"

Re: Haters

#170

Post by mannykannot »

littlestymaar wrote: post #85
randomsearch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That attachment is exactly what PG is talking about. Irrational support.

Right, but unlike PG I don't think irrationality is an exclusivity of “losers”. Every human being is deeply irrational, everyone in their fashion and I don't buy the negative correlation between “success” and irrationality.

The issue is not just irrationality, it is toxic, hostile irrationality. Regardless of to what extent everyone is deeply irrational, only a minority are hostile. I have to agree, however, that some deeply hostile people have been successful, often by channeling the hostility of genuine losers.
Post reply on HN