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

161–170 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#161

Post by agent281 »

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…

> Even in the HN thread on the essay, it felt like hardly anyone actually read and understood it, just brought their own assumptions and intellectual allergies and let them run wild. It would be great if people could discuss these issues rationally, but the vast majority can't. Everyone is on a hair trigger.

I think the essay was a rorschach test for readers. On its face, it has a very reasonable and measured tone. It also has some nods to the other side like the disclaimer you mentioned. However, it starts from some uncharitable premises (e.g., its definition of wokeness) and contains unnecessary gibes (e.g., against social sciences). More importantly, it takes the tone of a social sciences essay, a discipline that he mocks, without any of the rigor. There are not sources for his claims about the origins of wokeness or how universities operated from the 80's until today, you just have to take him at face value. It gives the illusion of being erudite without doing any of the actual work.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#162

Post by watwut »

Freak_NL wrote: post #140
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…

Besides, the whole bathroom thing is so old hat. You know what I hate in a bathroom? Other people. Of any gender. Thankfully, stalls have doors. I miss the days of Ally McBeal when unisex bathrooms were hip and the future.

In my local city there was conservative article about unisex bathroom putting framing it as transgender thing.

The bathroom was unisex when I was a kid, when trans were universally mocked. Bathroom is unisex, cause there is exactly one toilette in a small cafe in a super old building.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#163

Post by hnthrowaway6543 »

gopher_space wrote: post #147
beardedwizard wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law. Sure, but then you're handwaving away questions about why cultures align along similar axioms.

[flagged]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#165

Post by rchaud »

whack wrote: post #42

I appreciate the author and this article. As an immigrant and person of color, the author's concerns resonate with me. I don't think people like PG or Andreessen are evil bigots. But they are underestimating and enabling a movement that is cruel and exclusionary by design. A movement that they seek to tame and harness, but not understanding that the movement is fundamentally untameable. I miss the days when the Repub…

While I understand the point you're making, I am surprised by the examples you chose.

What Bush's speechwriter wrote, did not stop Bush from authorizing torture stations across the world, murdering hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians in two failed military occupations, while weakening America vis-a-vis Russia and China, a confrontation that has dominated the past several years. Do not mistake public statements as any indication of actual policy.

As for McCain, his words were "No Ma'am, he is not an Arab, he is a decent family man", which I suppose is addressing misinformation with a decisiveness Republicans wouldn't dream of today.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#166

Post by Philpax »

_1tem wrote: post #81
tclancy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably need to read more history, and maybe challenge yourself to find sources, if you think those things were always widely true everywhere.

Even most of the world right now doesn’t care about wokeness and never has. India, the Middle East, Africa, China, Russia etc. never caught on to most woke stuff that came out of the west in the past 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#167

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

I'm too lazy to search my comment history, but I wrote a comment on the original post about pg's essay that I did pretty much agree with what pg wrote, and so consequently I agree with most of what you wrote.

But that said, I definitely could not ignore the timing of pg's essay, and it felt plain gross to me. It felt like a lazy, convenient pile-on at that moment, even if pg's position had been largely consistent for a long time. I've seen all these tech leaders now lining up to point out the problems of the left (again, a lot of which I agree with), so where is the essay about the embarrassingly naked grift of the POTUS launching a ridiculous and useless meme coin just before his inauguration?

Also, there was nothing in that essay that I felt was particularly insightful or that I learned much from. It was, honestly, some bloviating pontification from someone who I now think holds his ideas in much higher regard than they deserve.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#168

Post by haswell »

gedpeck wrote: post #111
haswell wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are obvious bad/evil actors in the world. When people talk about engaging with other humans respectfully, they're generally not referring to the Putins of the world. And it's pretty rare to have so much clarity about a person to know they're in the "obviously reprehensible" bucket. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I often see people argue like this: 1. There are obviously bad actors in the world 2.…

Herein lies the crux of the matter in my view. The jump from 2 to 3. When Bob Dole ran for President I wholeheartedly agreed with the position about being respectful to those you disagree with. Politics was still normal in the U.S. at that time. But now we in the U.S. elected a known rapist. A felon and a con man. He can’t run a charity in New York due to his misdeeds. He lusts after his own daughter. We have entered…

To me, the issue boils down to pragmatism and utility.

It’s just human psychology; people tend not to change their minds when someone screams at them and otherwise disrespects them. If the goal is to move society in any particular direction, that requires some degree of successful communication, and throwing respect out the window directly counteracts the goal. If the goal is just to hold some moral high ground for the sake of it, that’s a pointless goal if it doesn’t lead to any underlying change.

Collectively, we don’t need to change the minds of obviously evil people, but we do need to influence the population that can vote them into or out of power. I just don’t see that ever happening if your outlook on life is this extreme:

> We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people

I know many people have convinced themselves that this is true, but this ultimately boils down to the question: so what then is the goal? To push these people deeper into their bubbles?

At some point one has to ask how much of the problem is being directly created by this “they’re all terrible people so I won’t even talk to them” mindset.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#169

Post by axiomo »

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?

> But do we really need tampons in mens' bathrooms, really?

More to the point, do we really want men like the author in the women's bathrooms? Just because they desire to be women.

We all need to take a step towards respecting women's boundaries by collectively telling these men: No.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#170

Post by runjake »

rexpop wrote: post #149
runjake wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless pg just now edited it out, you're making false quotes and misrepresenting his words. I cannot find the quote "social justice piggishness" or the word "gender" in his essay. Every single mention of the word "wave" is attached to "wave of political correctness" or a close variation thereof. Edit: OP meant "priggishness". Got it.

It's a typo. Paul's term is "priggish". And "political correctness" is a broad brush euphemism for, among other things, genderqueerness.

Thanks for this. I've always considered PC an entirely different thing, but after perusing the comments here, and given our new president's attitude toward the people affected, I can see your point.
Post reply on HN