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

YC is a cult

danielharan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: YC is a cult

#151

Post by asdflkj »

pg wrote: post #127
paul wrote: post #33

It's sad to see this trollish content rising to the top of news.yc.

I don't think it's as bad as it might seem. I'd rather have this on the frontpage than lolcats or accident pictures. In fact, I think some of the people who upvote or submit things like this do it as a way of keeping News.YC good. They don't want the site to degenerate into an intellectual monoculture. That doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything it says. Back in the 1960s, the Communists used to get so m…

The result might be the opposite of what those well-intentioned people want. If the alternative view is obviously lame and impotent, it only reinforces the mainstream. This is a well-known trick in politics. When Michael Moore argued for gun control in Bowling for Columbine, he let the other side be represented--by Charlton Heston, a particularly dull and inarticulate man.

You will probably agree that there are far more compelling objections to the ethos of Hacker News than this article.

Re: YC is a cult

#152

Post by pg »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #148
paul wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see LOLCATs. I haven't quite figured out how to articulate what's wrong with this kind of thing, but it's somewhat similar to Fox news -- they're not simply useless, they're corrosive. I'm still trying to think of a better explanation. Disagreement is fine and good, but this kind of thing is something else. The 37signals posts do a good job of presenting an alternate perspective, but in a way that is gener…

I'd like to see you explain yourself better, Paul. How can free speech corrode anything? Is it like when you tell a kid there's no Santa Claus, then you've hurt his innocence with your cynicism? It sounds like you've got your thumb on a very specific feeling, and I'd be interested to hear about it, but heck if I can figure out where you're going. I'm a big free speech guy, and I love a good kick in the butt from time…

Free speech is not a type of speech. It's a policy about speech.

So the question reduces to "How can speech be corrosive?" Corrosive is not a very precise word, but I can guess what Paul means: he means when people are deliberately intellectually dishonest, as for example Fox News seems to be. When someone (a) deliberately misrepresents what an opponent is saying (b) as if he were attacking something that is a hot button for the audience, and then (c) replies with rousing platitudes.

Re: YC is a cult

#153

Post by parker »

pdubroy wrote: post #86
parker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the 18 hour days reference was simply to imply that starting a startup is a full-time, front-of-mind undertaking. I think it's safe to say that this guy took it a bit out of context.

I think the article is a troll, but I don't think you can fault him for the way he interpreted that sentence. You said you've been working 18 hours a day, and then you implied that the only time you took off was to watch a movie now and then. I interpreted the statement literally too.

You can check out my response on my blog for the clarification. I suppose it was a bit awkwardly worded at first.

Re: YC is a cult

#154

Post by mattmaroon »

stcredzero wrote: post #126
mattmaroon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like that formula, because in both cases the manipulator would think it's for their own good. It's too subjective.

Well, that's why there is no formula! It's a sticky wicket. In the case of the mother and child, in most cases, the mother is correct in thinking it's "for their own good." Also, in that case, there's good reason to believe that the child doesn't know what's best. So don't try to put any formula in my mouth. I explicitly said I had none! (It's like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.")

Well, I guess I meant that any formula you come up with around that statment suffers from revisionist history, and a very subjective view of what is really good. I was objecting to the formula you hadn't pinned down based on the output.

Most people would say that George W Bush deceived us into invading Iraq. Had he found a few nukes lying around, would that still have been unethical? A lot of people who think his actions were unethical now would probably not if the results were different, even though nothing was known at the time he did it.

Re: YC is a cult

#156

Post by DanielBMarkham »

pg wrote: post #152
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see you explain yourself better, Paul. How can free speech corrode anything? Is it like when you tell a kid there's no Santa Claus, then you've hurt his innocence with your cynicism? It sounds like you've got your thumb on a very specific feeling, and I'd be interested to hear about it, but heck if I can figure out where you're going. I'm a big free speech guy, and I love a good kick in the butt from time…

Free speech is not a type of speech. It's a policy about speech. So the question reduces to "How can speech be corrosive?" Corrosive is not a very precise word, but I can guess what Paul means: he means when people are deliberately intellectually dishonest, as for example Fox News seems to be. When someone (a) deliberately misrepresents what an opponent is saying (b) as if he were attacking something that is a hot bu…

Free speech as a policy has consistently been interpreted as political speech, that is, speech about what or what not we should be doing. It this sense of speech as a voice of opposition calling for change in the status quo that I meant.

Sorry to make so many jumps, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to use the term in any other way -- obviously I'm not talking about speech one does not have to pay for. Or speech that is unconstrained.

There's a fine difference between honestly describing what you believe to be the other person's views, exaggerating the other person's views in order to show how his/her argument fails at the extremes, and purposely mis-stating the other person's views simply to mock them without giving them a fair chance at explanation.

We do all three of these all of the time in normal arguments, btw.

I just couldn't equate the blog to the TV channel reference. I'm not going to defend Fox News, mainly because I don't think they need defending. I'm unaware of anything that seems "wrong" about them, save for the fact they seem to bug the heck out of more progressive people. But it seemed like two different genres, and two completely different animals.

There's an interesting question in there about blogs in general, and the tendency in media for consumers to prefer people who rant and rave, as I notice many of the later evening cable news entertainment shows doing. (Note the separation of news, news commentary, and news entertainment) I wonder why this type of "corrosive" media attracts so many viewers? Is there a large group of people, for instance, that really want to hear YC misrepresented and trashed? I don't believe that. I believe the article in question only exaggerated a bit to show where the site could be headed. If not, there's nothing stopping us from using his piece for that purpose.

It just always raises my hairs when somebody says something to the effect of "stop that man! He's saying something dangerous!" or the like. I'm just curious. EDIT: Paul did not use the word "dangerous." he only implied that this article was in some different category of bad speech beyond LOLCats.

Re: YC is a cult

#157

Post by cbrinker »

The cylinder only fits in the circular hole.

You can't assume that you always have a cylinder or a cube to fit into the mold. Heck, you may end up with an icosidigon and have only a triangle to try to shove it into.

As amazing as the Y Combinator idea may sound to some, you also have to have a healthy sense of skepticism and apply it appropriately to every situation and oppourtunity that comes your way. Make it work for you, not you for it.

Re: YC is a cult

#158

Post by stcredzero »

mattmaroon wrote: post #154
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's why there is no formula! It's a sticky wicket. In the case of the mother and child, in most cases, the mother is correct in thinking it's "for their own good." Also, in that case, there's good reason to believe that the child doesn't know what's best. So don't try to put any formula in my mouth. I explicitly said I had none! (It's like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.")

Well, I guess I meant that any formula you come up with around that statment suffers from revisionist history, and a very subjective view of what is really good. I was objecting to the formula you hadn't pinned down based on the output. Most people would say that George W Bush deceived us into invading Iraq. Had he found a few nukes lying around, would that still have been unethical? A lot of people who think his act…

If George W. knew that there were nukes lying around Iraq and used deception to motivate the US to go to war to get them, then I'd say that would be better than the current situation, but I'm still not sure it would be ethical. However, it looks like he knew there weren't nukes or any sort of WMDs there.

In the case of the mom, the prospects for long term harm are minimal and the potential for long term benefit are pretty good. In the case of taking a country to war, there's always a whole lot of potential for long term harm.

Re: YC is a cult

#159

Post by stcredzero »

Xichekolas wrote: post #145
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's why there is no formula! It's a sticky wicket. In the case of the mother and child, in most cases, the mother is correct in thinking it's "for their own good." Also, in that case, there's good reason to believe that the child doesn't know what's best. So don't try to put any formula in my mouth. I explicitly said I had none! (It's like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.")

At least you are honest about your beliefs. Most people get highly offended if you suggest that their political stances are nothing more than a series of gut reactions.

The evidence indicates that, for most, life is a series of gut reactions that we rationalize later.
Post reply on HN