The footnotes are once again missing in this article (as in, the notes appear, but are not linked to from the text). I think this is the third or fourth article for which this is true - hope pg notices and fixes this.
Haters
241–250 of 308 posts
Re: Haters
#242I think that believing in "haters" is a great way to embed yourself in a reality distortion field. You don't need to dismiss someone to ultimately dismiss their criticism of you. Graham probably won't read this, but my advice to him (from a moderate admirer, not a "hater") is not to do this to himself.
Absolutely you can dismiss valid criticism as "haters", and absolutely it's a bad thing to do - you don't hear truth that you need to hear.
But I think most of us here have never actually experienced haters. We aren't big enough, famous enough, successful enough. We may have seen people who were haters of someone else, but we've never been on the receiving end. And I suspect that, as PG said, when you receive it for the first time, it can be confusing. I think it's a valid thing to note, and to mention to people who might become big, important, or famous. (But also mention not to use this to turn off all criticism.)
Re: Haters
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all blew up on Twitter and Reddit a few nights ago. I actually ended up in chats (directly and indirectly) with a few different LS alumni who didn't know what to do, as they were unable to find work and afraid to speak out against LS for not doing a good job.
Interesting. I think Austen is a brilliant self-promoter, which is the source of much of his and LS's success. Not knocking that at all, the product seems to work for a lot of people and the more he can scale it the more people he can help. Being a good self-promoter puts you prominently in the public eye which is I think attracts a lot of detractors/haters. There are also competitors with very similar offerings who…
It seems like maybe losing all their well-known teachers and jeopardizing every contract they have inked with students by lying publicly about their lack of licensing in California aren't sufficient complaints?
Re: Haters
#244What if the reason haters are using the word "fraud" is not because of sour grape chewing about the random vagaries of chance, but because the company (at the behest of their leadership) has been lying to their customers about such things as: 1. Their employee list (not updating it quickly after major staffing changes) 2. Legal status: misrepresenting to the public and to customers that the company is licensed to ope…
A more recent example would be this Dec. 30, 2019 twitter thread [0], in which someone asked for an update from the California state regulator on Lambda's approval status, and was told that they were not approved, (see edit for correction of following) and apparently, do not appear to have submitted an application. [0] https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1211717254712135680 edit: the thread author just replied that…
Thanks. I'm on a plane and the WiFi gets kinda bad over Greenland. I couldn't get Twitter's search function to work reliably.
Re: Haters
#245I have to totally disagree with this statement: > 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. Just…
> How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud?
The very premise of this question is broken.
What matters is whether y is a fraud, not why x is calling them a fraud. The way to discover whether y is a fraud is to look at any evidence x provides, and/or think about any questions x proposes.
If x is correct, what does it matter if they’re a hater? If x is incorrect, what does it matter whether neutral opinion agrees with x?
Imagine we applied this logic to barristers. The defence rises to argue that the police exceeded their authority by searching the accused’s home without a warrant.
“Your honour,” the district attorney/crown attorney drawls, “My friend acting for the defence is a notorious police hater. Day after day, all they do is nitpick and question the actions of the police and the conclusions we the prosecution draw from the evidence.”
Re: Haters
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? > Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” Why is envy assumed to be the motivation of the "hater"? If I recall correctly, Markopolous was driven by the idea that cheaters shouldn't win. Is that any different than the "hater" who is driven by the idea that person/product/concept "X" is unworthy? The world needs haters for the same rea…
I think you can qualify a hater as someone who wishes someone else would fail for no good reason other than making them feel better about themselves. Maybe that’s envy, maybe it’s not.
I don't think it makes sense to include as unknowable as a hater's internal motivation as a defining characteristic.
Moreover even when there is "no good reason" initially, good reason might be found eventually. Scrutiny usually begins with the intuition that something doesn't add up, with the actual evidence arriving later. The "hate" for the fraudster precedes the exposure of the fraud.
Re: Haters
#247Nice but judging by those standards almost everyone on this planet is a loser.
Re: Haters
#248If you search and replace "haters" with "taters", it becomes a very strange essay about potatoes.
Re: Haters
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's also true for those who call Elon Musk a fraud. Disputes such as "funding secured" (securities fraud), "full self driving coming later this year" (false advertising), booking warranty expenses as goodwill (accounting fraud), Musk's claim he had "recused himself" from the SolarCity acquisition when he hadn't (securities fraud). These accusations of fraud are all truth-claims about the world. They are provab…
I don't think PG is talking about accusations that the person is engaging in fraud. I think he's talking about claims that the person is a fraud - that they have (to use the singer example) no actual talent. If I claim that Tom Brady, say, defrauded someone, that's an accusation about actual deeds involving actual money. If I claim that he's a fraud, though, I'm claiming that he's not actually any good as a quarterba…
>If I claim that he's a fraud, though, I'm claiming that he's not actually any good as a quarterback.
For many people, calling someone a fraud is simply shorthand for saying they are a fraudster. Not that they have no talent, but that they commit fraud.
Re: Haters
#250Good points and we are definitely not above this phenomenon. Articles with >500 comments are almost always infested with
endless threads pitting fanboys against haters. It's an infinite loop that goes nowhere.