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

I Met Paul Graham Once

okayfail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#101

Post by gedpeck »

ethbr1 wrote: post #53
gedpeck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you. In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

Fair, but in our current times using someone's identity as a justification to act like an asshole to them is a sith's whisper. We all have our less enlightened moments. Better we not afford ourselves easy intellectual justifications for being our worst selves. As the quip goes: the greatest evils are perpetrated by those most assured of their own righteousness. Edit: Or in video form. Beginning summary: "brick suit g…

In normal times I would agree with you. At present in the U.S. I’d not agree with this sentiment. People who support electing a known racist, thief, con man, and felon are deserving of ridicule and ire. They don’t deserve respect in my opinion.

When the politics of a nation shift so far in one direction we get into a situation where supporters of that shift don’t deserve respect. Stalinist Soviet Union is an extreme example of this.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#102

Post by Nevermark »

There are a lot of things that bother me these days. But particularly some things that are pervasive, unnecessary, habitual amplifiers of disagreement.

If someone is going to address extremists on an issue, don't just be anti-extremist. What empty courage is that?

Address extremists by pushing the dialog back to the real issue. In this case, treating people who have been denigrated for centuries better.

Otherwise, ungrounded one-sided criticism of extremists on one side of an issue, just gives tacit permission for the extremists on the other side. It can even be difficult to tell, whether they are not simply mirror extremists themselves. But either way, they just amplify the extremist vs. extremist narrative.

And completely distract from the real human level issues that are being hijacked.

Don't be anti-bad, while conspicuously avoiding acknowledging what would be good. How should we address discrimination against trans and other non-binary people? What changes are beneficial? What companies have DEI approaches that are good models?

PG, any thoughts?

Please, don't call out "your going too far!" - no matter how necessary or accurately - if you don't have the courage, insight, or a genuine desire to solve the underlying problem. And express "how far" you agree we should go.

Don't just poke a bear. Address the elephant!.

--

One-sided viewpoints just make an easy sport, score trivial (dare I say, also performative?) points, out of something more serious.

I.e. don't make strong arguments for or against one side of the Israeli-Palestine situation, without acknowledging the strong points you do accept as valid from both sides.

I hope I don't offend anyone by suggesting that any intellectually honest discussion of divisive views cannot possibly boil down to one-sided criticisms of other people's one-sided views.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#104

Post by coderc »

snowwrestler wrote: post #58

Once upon a time, not that long ago, within my lifetime in fact, being gay was targeted for public abuse the way that transgender people are being targeting now. That has declined as people came to understand that being gay, lesbian, bi is part of how a person is made. Under public pressure, a gay person can act straight or at least act not gay. But it doesn't change who they are, doesn't help anyone around them, and…

It seems to me that prigs, as defined in pg's article, are just jumping on the transgender issue because it's an easy way for them to enforce rules. From my understanding, having read both articles, PG might say that the prigs have chosen to ride the lgbt movement. The problem is not with the lgbt movement itself.

Unfortunately, this gives the movement a bad reputation. Some prigs aren't lgbt people at all, but they speak on behalf of them, as they also speak on behalf of other groups that they aren't a part of. Some prigs might actually be a part of the minority they speak for, but I would hazard a guess, based on no data, and say that these are the minority of all prigs.

I think PG's problem is with the prigs, not the lgbt movement itself. Can these be separated?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#105

Post by ethbr1 »

timeon wrote: post #96
ethbr1 wrote: post #24

Great, cohesive, and clear essay! Hear hear. One thing that I think is underappreciated in our current times, that gets lost on both the left and the right sides -- an individual is more important than their identity . - A specific trans person can also be an asshole. - A specific white man can also be a saint. Extremists on both political sides will scream about the reasons one or the other of those statements is wr…

> gets lost on both the left and the right sides It gets lost because of this black/white US perspective on politics. If you were multiparty system there will be less identities in politics.

Also, diffusing the bully pulpit and celebrity between a president, prime minister, and/or ceremonial royalty. Policy > popularity.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#106

Post by Angostura »

neom wrote: post #13

It's complicated isn't it? A business doesn't care about you. It doesn't because it can't. Business doesn't have thoughts and feelings, business is clinical. Business is nothing more than the collection of processed and systems crafted to work together, facilitating the exchange of value between 2 parties. The problem is with the 2 parties part. The 2 parties part, that part very much does have thoughts, feelings, an…

I disagree with your axiom that businesses shouldn’t have feelings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a business that feels it should treat its workforce kindly and ethically and recruit a diverse set of people.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#108

Post by Angostura »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #75

"why go out of your way to remove them" in principle, it's fine to have them. But really, they are just a symbol of the fake performative substance free dei culture. A reminder of it. Transgender employees should not be discriminated against, should have all the protections and respect like any other employees. But do we really need tampons in mens' bathrooms, really?

If someone was born biological any male and is transitioning and still has periods, it seems useful, so why not?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#109

Post by beardedwizard »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #60
gedpeck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you. In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

> But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. the current conflict in the middle east shows why this doesn't work in the long run. despite what a generation that grew up consuming Marvel films was led to believe, not every conflict is a clearly defined superhero-vs-supervillain, good-vs-evil affair. eventually, you will be the on…

Very underrated comment. Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#110

Post by watwut »

layer8 wrote: post #99
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of hearing "both sides" though.

Focusing on the individual means dropping the notion of “sides”. Identifying people (or even arguments) by their alleged “side”, instead of taking them on their own merit, is where things go wrong.

Where things go wrong is that the "extremists on both sides" is used to distract from what people on one side do. It is just a shield designed to prevent analysis.
Post reply on HN