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

261–270 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#261

Post by grawprog »

> I would make an exception for teenagers, who sometimes act in such extreme ways that they are literally not themselves. I can imagine a teenage kid being a hater and then growing out of it. But not anyone over 25.

I have trouble understanding why someone over 25 would be either a fanboy or a hater. People are just people. No matter how good someone is, they fuck up, make mistakes, aren't so good at other things and have flaws. Likewise, even someone you find terrible or a 'fraud' has their success or fame for a reason. You may not agree with it but obviously someone sees value in.what they do.

I just can't understand spending the energy obsessing over people either way. I understand recognizing the great achievements people make or being critical of flaws. But to obsess over them seems like such a waste of time and energy.

Nobody's perfect and nobody's completely and utterly hopeless or a fraud or whatever(I see why this term is causing some discussion on hn. It is tough to find a suitable word to describe how a hater would view the hated).

Also, as much as being either a fanboy or hater is a waste of time, feeding off of either of them is also. However good the fanboy's make you feel, it sets you up in a bubble where you start to believe what they say and start to truly believe you can do no wrong. Likewise, the criticism of the haters doesn't really allow you room for critical self analysis because you can do no right.

And as for that bit switch, the funny thing about haters and fanboys is that switch isn't permanently set. It can switch back and forth for the most arbitrary reasons. Because, it's all just obsessive energy and it doesn't take much to switch focus either way.

Re: Haters

#262

Post by TheTruth321 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #254

absolutely horrible piece. From invoking stereotypes about basement-dwelling losers and manhood to a completely uncritical view about what constitutes hate and what doesn't, to the implicit lambda school context around the article, this reads like apologia for the tech CEO polite society who cannot handle criticism from ordinary people. The article even uses the words famous and successful interchangeably, entertaini…

Bravo.

Re: Haters

#263

Post by philwelch »

zemo wrote: post #166

> 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.

I think you're reading that into it a little. There's a distinction between serious criticism and haters. Serious criticism entails understanding that people are imperfect and complicated and criticizing some of their actions while admitting that other actions might be good or at least neutral. Haters will hate everything someone does because of who they are.

A good example of this might be politics. Let's talk about the previous President. If you think the JPCOA was a bad deal, you're skeptical of drone strikes, or you disagree with the Affordable Care Act, you might be some form of reasonable Obama critic. If you think Obama is a secret Muslim who was actually born in Kenya and that it's disgraceful and un-American for him to wear a tan suit or ask for dijon mustard on a hamburger, you're probably a hater. That sounds deranged, but there are some deranged people out there and you should ignore them.

In other words, only take criticism seriously if it's serious criticism. (I think I stole that line from mechanical_fish.)

Re: Haters

#264

Post by redsymbol »

Barrin92 wrote: post #254

absolutely horrible piece. From invoking stereotypes about basement-dwelling losers and manhood to a completely uncritical view about what constitutes hate and what doesn't, to the implicit lambda school context around the article, this reads like apologia for the tech CEO polite society who cannot handle criticism from ordinary people. The article even uses the words famous and successful interchangeably, entertaini…

Consider that the tone of the article, as you're experiencing it, may have more to do with your own attitude and preconceptions, and what meanings you're choosing to read between the lines.

Where you wrote:

"Entertaining the idea that..." "... is revealing ..." "The tone of the article sounds like..." "It almost sounds like..."

These are all places where one could interpret things very differently.

I read the whole article also, and drew none of the conclusions you did.

Re: Haters

#265

Post by seemslegit »

Adding Paul Graham to the list of people whose detractors are just haters and losers who will never amount to anything, it's becoming quite the club.

Re: Haters

#266

Post by littlestymaar »

mannykannot wrote: post #167
littlestymaar wrote: post #37

Earlier 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…

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.

IRL you can, on the internet the former is much rarer and only works on small groups where the community part is important. And on Twitter or other places where people don't know each other (HN is no exception even if there is a moderation system) it just never happen.

Re: Haters

#267

Post by burfog »

barry-cotter wrote: post #114
randomsearch wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

Greta Thunberg is an abused child.

Her father, with a prior career in social media, is running the show. That recent Facebook bug even revealed that he was posting on her behalf: https://i.imgur.com/KdsN3u7.jpg

It's really sad that she doesn't get to be a kid. She is being used.

Re: Haters

#268

Post by gist »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #252
gist wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not a fanboy of pg Predictably there are many fanboys of PG. Very generally a negative comment about PG that is not packaged correctly and with care will get a certain amount of backlash on HN vs. the same about an unknown or lesser known person. It's as if the 'fanboys' feel it is their duty to defend the person (PG or otherwise). And (per my comment elsewhere) it's that love that drives the haters. It feels (…

If only we could somehow limit articles to anonymous authors, so we can focus on the substance of the piece versus who wrote it.

Or what would be also interesting is if PG replied to comments two ways and choose randomly his identity (by flip of a coin). He'd write a comment. Then flip a coin. One side he posts his comment (he doesn't comment anymore but let's say he got back to doing that) as 'PG'. Another with another stealth handle. Not about anything substantive where he has authority. Then see how people react (upvotes or argumentative) to what he says. At the end of a time period (call it months) write a blog post on the 'results' of that 'test'.

Further the replies could not be with the same handle (other than the PG handle). So nobody would upvote just for the reputation (positive or negative). (Or perhaps three handles PG, Anon same handle, Anon unique handle).

Re: Haters

#269

Post by temac »

gorpomon wrote: post #181
codingdave wrote: post #158

I'm surprised at the harsh negativity in this article. Not that the inquiry into why people become 'haters' isn't intriguing, but to explore it so shallowly and to boil it down to "Well, they are losers", and call in the image of "basement dwellers" frankly, makes pg sound like he is falling into the same trap he is trying to write about - generic hating on others. Despite that, his other points have merit. Haters an…

> I'm not a fanboy of pg, just a reader, so I'm not going to act like he has let us down by penning a weaker article. I really appreciate this sentiment. A weaker article is just that, weaker, not indicative of anything else.

Not so sure given the current temporal context we are discussing about. Paul Graham has some interests in Lambda School (YC S17), has also personally promoted it (e.g. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1175434253741580289 ), and might be trying to deflect some criticism by implying through extremely weak generalized pseudo-philosophical considerations that they are not valid criticism, and even that who is emitting the criticisms might be "less than man." (weird, he knows about the Streisand effect, no?)

Or it might be just a curious coincidence, and not indicative of anything else.

Re: Haters

#270

Post by kragen »

braythwayt wrote: post #245
rjdagost wrote: post #172

I 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 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 a hater, they may indeed bring forward useful evidence. Even their silence can be useful evidence: if a Courtney Cobain hater doesn't think she killed Kurt, that's pretty good evidence that there isn't even the flimsiest case that she did, since if there was, the hater would have obsessively investigated it and presented the best case.

However, the existence of a hater, or many haters, doesn't provide any real evidence that y is a fraud. It's just evidence that y is famous. In the same way, a defense attorney questioning the actions of the police doesn't in itself provide any real evidence that the police acted questionably. It provides evidence that they are a defense attorney.

It probably isn't a good strategy for finding the truth to carefully consider all the claims that y is a fraud if they are famous. That's because any famous person will have many thousands of haters, and so there will be many thousands of such claims to review. Maybe if a friend of yours is such a hater, talking to them is worthwhile. Or maybe it's worth reading one or two antifan diatribes. But at some point you probably want to plow your attention into more fertile fields.

Speaking of which, I have appreciated and admired your thinking for many years, having learned a great deal from you, and I even thought of you as a friend. So it came as a shock when you blocked me on Twitter. What did I do?

Post reply on HN