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

151–160 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#151

Post by patresh »

Some of the disagreement or confusion seems to stem from the definition of the word "woke" which means different things to different people?

Having read both essays I don't see them necessarily in disagreement. pg criticizes the performative and orthodox nature of some social justice activists' behavior, however it doesn't seem that the author's behavior here is performative at all.

Perhaps we should just avoid these terms like "woke" and just say what we mean to avoid this societal dissonance? I feel like decent rational people can talk past each other depending on how they have been exposed to the term.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#153

Post by watwut »

ethbr1 wrote: post #123
watwut wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not, because there's a difference between 'extremist individuals in a side' and 'a side as monolith.' It is currently en vogue to use the excesses of specific instances or individuals to tar entire identities, but that's statistically dishonest. Most people are not extremists, in the sense of 'if you talk to them at 1:13pm on a random Tuesday.'

There is actual political program and actual laws being pushed on. That is the reality. And yes, that political program belongs to that side.

It is OK to blame republicans as such for what Trump or JD Vance does, because they made them big. It is ok to blame them for the for the supreme court politics too, because they knowingly put exactly those people there, knowing they will remove protection for abortion and lied about it.

It is OK to blame democrats for what Biden does.

For the both sides thing however, you need to attribute acts of people who Democratic party actively pushes away to that party ... and to pretend that people voting for republicans have zero to do with what that party does.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#154

Post by rexpop »

slibhb wrote: post #41

I thought this was better than most essays in this vein. I do fundamentally disagree with the author. People can think poorly of you for whatever reason they want. If someone hates trans people, they can, and you can't stop them. The whole "war on hate" thing was a bad idea; you can't forbid hatred. It predictably didn't work, and it's good that we're turning away from it. Adding on, the trans issue isn't simple. The…

[flagged]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#155

Post by marcusverus »

skywhopper wrote: post #37
andrewflnr wrote: post #10

You should have finished reading PG's essay. It's really quite narrowly scoped. There's no indication I could see that he doesn't still hold the same basically liberal politics (he included explicit disclaimers, for all the good that did); he might still be fine with transgender identity. He just wanted to talk about how the particular loudmouth brand of annoying leftist came to prominence. He even had a decent defin…

The mere fact that pg takes the word “woke” seriously tells me he’s fallen for the right-wing doublespeak where they take a word vaguely related to left-wing ideals, pretend it means something else, apply to anyone center-right or leftward, and get the mainstream media and self-conscious centrists like Paul to accept their intentional distortions at face value. This pattern happens again and again with words and phra…

It might be reasonable to disregard Mr. Graham if he were somehow abusing the term "woke", but it seems wrongheaded to disregard him due to "the mere fact that [he] takes the word "woke" seriously".

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#156

Post by gedpeck »

ethbr1 wrote: post #112
gedpeck wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So what lengths do you think you're justified going to against individuals you disagree with? And how do you feel about them feeling the same about you? Mutual righteous hostility is why ethnic and religious wars simmer forever, because there's always a convenient justification for acting violently towards others (and them towards you).

… justified going to against individuals you disagree with?

I don’t do anything at this time. But I understand why there are those who do have vitriol for supporters of a rapist who lusts after his own daughter. There are times when a nation’s society fractures as the social cohesion evaporates. We are beginning to be in such a time in the U.S. Well, it appears that way to me. Only time will tell.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#157

Post by ziddoap »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #124
Arainach wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The whole "war on hate" thing was a bad idea; you can't forbid hatred You can't forbid it but you can absolutely make it socially unacceptable. "Free speech" doesn't mean letting people spew hate and doing nothing; choosing not to hand them a megaphone, support their business, etc. is entirely valid.

It became so socially unacceptable that its proponents won the US presidency and took control of Congress and globally famous business leaders are bending the knee to them without repercussion? What definition of "can absolutely" are you using?

It is less socially acceptable in some cultures, more in others.

The fact that a gradient exists is proof that, under different circumstances, the social acceptableness of hatred can change.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#158

Post by rexpop »

Nevermark wrote: post #102

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, un…

You make a good point that no one else had, afaik: PG is strawmanning, and not steelmanning his opponents. This is craven.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#159

Post by watwut »

coderc wrote: post #144
watwut wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are real questions about bathrooms, women's sports, and when medical interventions are called for. Yes there are real questions, but there are also real answers. Currently, 99% of people asking questions have literally zero interest in answers. They do not care about what research say or whether there is harm or not. They ask questions to convince the audience about their political project. They do not care a…

I would think that your claim about "99% of people asking questions have literally zero interest in answers" applies more to 'both sides' than one might initially think. Is either side open to being told "no", or at least "wait, we need to be more cautious about this"? Or do both sides just want their demands to be accepted? Would either side actually back down if the research said that what they were doing was harmf…

> "wait, we need to be more cautious about this"? Or do both sides just want their demands to be accepted?

I think that yours "wait, we need to be more cautious about this" or is this just another "I do not care about answers, I just want to pretend so".

> Would either side actually back down if the research said that what they were doing was harmful or ineffective?

Research is there and it is saying current clinics were not harmful and were not ineffective. So yes, one side cares about research and the other is not.

Post reply on HN