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

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#831

Post by pdonis »

jessaustin wrote: post #734
pdonis wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many effective protests do destroy property, and that's mostly the property of large corporations. The property being destroyed by rioters and looters in the current wave largely belongs to individuals and small businesses, although there have been some large corporations affected (e.g., Macy's in NYC was looted). > Violence against individual humans is a separate issue. I agree that it is worse to harm or kill a h…

Apparently your impression is that most property damage from rioting has affected small business and home owners. My impression, from both mainstream and fringe media and personal observation, is definitely not that. I doubt we'll settle the disagreement on this point through discussion. ISTM one has to conjure up a quite particular "white anarchist" bad guy to support the "small business" theory. What branch of anar…

> I'm glad we agree that property owned by large corporations and covered by insurance is not something to worry about.

I did not say I agreed with that.

> since we must constantly distract ourselves from the goals of protests that are manifestly mostly not those things

I am doing no such thing. I am simply drawing an important distinction that you appear to be unwilling or unable to draw, between justified protest and unjustified violence.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#832

Post by RonaldRaygun »

im3w1l wrote: post #638
oisdk wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable. So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it? A guy wasn’t asked back as a dorm a…

> Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right? It wasn't a murder. I suggest you read the transcript from Lane's body camera. Key points: * Lane approaches George Floyd asks him to show his hands. Floyd is so high, he has difficulty complying. * They take him out of his car and try to get him in the police car. * Floyd claims he can't breathe and begs to be allowed to lie on the ground. * They c…

Wow, that was so nice of the police to let him lie down when he asked.

Then to thoughtfully apply a knee to his neck to prevent him from flying up into the sky if gravitational attraction were to suddenly reverse, so very helpful and just! And they kept at it for almost 9 minutes, such dedication to helping the public, wow.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#833

Post by sparkie »

so33 wrote: post #692
stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

> the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing). If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.

I see you slipped the word "violence" in there. Perhaps you misspelled "defence"?

The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right".

You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners).

There's some historical examples of individuals giving up their guns, perhaps you should read into what happened afterwards?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#834

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dantheman wrote: post #306
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many improvements have no disadvantage Every improvement has, at the very least, its Luddite cost. It forces some people to change, and some of those people won’t like that.

What was the disadvantage introduced by having doctors wash their hands or the invention of antibiotics?

> What was the disadvantage introduced by having doctors wash their hands or the invention of antibiotics?

Not disadvantage, trade-off cost. Someone, no doubt, lost business selling quack cures.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#835

Post by harimau777 »

sparkie wrote: post #829
harimau777 wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they talk at all about how they felt that should be balanced against the need for society to work together towards common goals? I'm worried about some of the excesses of "cancel culture" but I'm more worried about the current Republican approach of basically saying that society has no obligation to its members. What worries me the most, is that I'm not sure I see a good way to balance the two extremes.

How do individuals meet their obligations to society (if any)? Do they do it through voluntary exchange, altruism and compassion. Or do they do it out of compulsion because they are threatened with violence? The latter is obviously not what we want, but its the State we have. Reducing the size of the state therefore sounds like a good plan, since it should reduce the amount of threatening with violence that has to be…

It seems to me that reasoning is backwards. People agree to come together in society because the believe that doing so will allow their needs to be met. If their needs are not being met but they still go along with society, then it is likely because of the threat of violence if they do not.

For example, I recognize someone else's home as private property because I want my own home to be recognized as private property. However, if a society's economy is such that I cannot afford a house then the only motivation for me to respect someone else's home as private property is because society threatens to throw me in jail if I don't.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#836

Post by snowwrestler »

sparkie wrote: post #824
snowwrestler wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors. There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history. And worse, takin…

One problem is the inability of media to separate the issues of protesting for change, and the organization Black Lives Matter. As such, the protestors are basically being ignored, and BLM are being lauded. BLM are the "face" of the protest - made this way mainly by left-wing media. But BLM is a questionable organization. It's aims are not merely supporting black lives - but there is an insidious Marxism to it (and a…

“Black lives matter” is not an organization. It’s a simple statement that affirms that black lives should matter as much as white lives do. People say it today because data clearly show that in our society today, they don’t.

Mitt Romney says “black lives matter”... do you think he is an insidious Marxist? (For those not familiar with Romney, he got rich running a hedge fund and ran for president as a Republican.)

Yes there are a few people who are taking the phrase and adding in their own economic politics. Framing the entire movement based on those few people is the sort of bad-faith argument I’m complaining about above.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#837

Post by RonaldRaygun »

sparkie wrote: post #826
jimbokun wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the Trump administration is, by far, the bigger threat. The trouble is the left are staring to adapt his tactics. At the beginning of Trump's term, there was a lot of concern about how Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news" and threatening spurious libel claims, trying to shut down speech he didn't like. Now the left is adopting the mirror image policy of trying to shut…

> Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news" Trump wasn't trying to "silence the press" - this was left-wing media rhetoric. He was simply calling them out for their sloppy journalism, and it worked to his favour. Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at…

> Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers

This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light.

"Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.

Trump repurposed it to refer to any news item that he disagrees with or that casts him in a negative light. (And in fairness, some actual fake news falls under this category as well, but the proportions are small enough to make this useless as a differentiator.)

He labels CNN "fake news" for calling him out on easily verifiable lies. At this point, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that he often conveys falsehoods to his audience is being purposefully obtuse - I have more respect for the people that admit this but believe it is a justified means to what they see as a desirable end.

> We need less state, not more.

I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#838

Post by michaelmrose »

jariel wrote: post #798
michaelmrose wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are allowed to think you are a bigot and say so. You are allowed to deride them while you roll in your scrooge mdduckian pile o money.

Well you seem to be able to help me make my point better than I ever could by myself.

I meant for clarity that people are allowed to think JK rowling is a bigot and she is allowed to roll in pile of money while denying it and attacking her detractors.

The subject of the sentence wasn't clear.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#839

Post by snowwrestler »

wisty wrote: post #658
snowwrestler wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors. There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history. And worse, takin…

A lot of these protesters seem to be willingly acting as shields for the brick-throwers. How many times have we seen a black-clad (thus like the 'secret police' unidentifiable and unaccountable) brick thrower seek shelter in the crowd of "peaceful" protesters?

The protesters are there on their own initiative to express their own opinion. They should not have to stop because a few bad actors show up and try to hide in them.

It would be like saying no one should go to the market because a few pickpockets use the big crowd to hide in.

People don’t go to the market to hide pickpockets. And protesters don’t protest to hide brick-throwers.

Post reply on HN