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

171–180 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#171

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

"who told America that Islam is a religion of peace"

This is something I considered a brazen lie in the interest of stability.

I believe in existence of individual peaceful Muslims, but I don't believe in inherent peacefulness of a religion founded by a warrior who converted Arabia by the sword and which had since seen an endless series of holy wars initiated in the name of Islam.

You can't really build societal understanding on a foundation of such misinformation.

To be clear, Christianity and Judaism aren't "religions of peace" either. Some explicitly anti-militaristic sects like the Amish maybe. But the Abrahamic faiths as such, no.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#174

Post by arp242 »

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…

> I miss the days when the Republican party was led by a President like Bush, who told America that Islam is a religion of peace

At the same time he also said that if you don't agree with him, you're with the terrorists. I do agree that Bush went out of his way to not stigmatize Muslims or Islam, but "don't be a flaming racist" is not that high of a bar to meet, and he was very much not a moderate open to nuanced views (on this topic, and various others). Never mind stuff like Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, torture. I'm not sure it really matters for the Guantanamo Bay whether Bush is or isn't prejudiced against their ethnicity or religion: they're still detained in a camp. Without trail. For years. Being tortured.

McCain defending Obama against vile racist attacks was also not that high of a bar to meet. McCain was also a standard GOP senator during the "obstruct whatever Obama does at all cost" years, never mind how he tried to appeal to the crazy Tea Party fanbase with Palin. I don't entirely dislike the man by the way – I'd say his legacy is mixed and complex.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't look at it the past too rose-coloured. The current mess didn't spontaneously come to exist out of nothing. People like Bush and McCain made a pig sty of things, and then were surprised pigs turned up to roll around in the mess. The old "gradually and then suddenly" quip applies not just to bankruptcy.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#175

Post by ethbr1 »

Suppafly wrote: post #130
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.

>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. I feel like the parent comment is pretending to be deep and meaningful but is really just rehashing the 'both sides are the same' argument with a side of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion'. It's nice to say that we should judge everyone for w…

The difference is between judging an individual for what they themselves say vs what identities you associate with them (or even those they associate with themselves).

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#176

Post by DasCorCor »

_1tem wrote: post #35
bryant wrote: post #22

My guess is there are two possibilities as to what's going on: * Many tech pioneers and leaders deep down felt an animosity towards supporting people who didn't fit the mold and finally feel free to express it (the worst-case outcome), and/or * Many tech pioneers and leaders wish to continue supporting those who don't fit the mold but feel their own status threatened by figures with nearly infinite power[0] who disag…

Or maybe the world is simply returning to the way it has been for pretty much all of recorded history. Wars, male dominance, two fixed genders, oligarchs and barons and racism is the norm for all human beings since forever. “Wokeness” is a very recent anomaly.

goose comic Who has recorded that history?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#177

Post by gedpeck »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #145
gedpeck wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people" is obviously hyperbole -- if it were true, the onus would be on you to start taking action against those terrible people. but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible, because you're still working your 9-5 for your terrible-person boss, getting paid like every other schmuck, and you're happy to let those irredeemably terrible people…

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people"

A large majority of the people did not vote for Donald Trump.

but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible,

People who support Donald Trump are, in general, terrible people. They aren’t evil people doing evil things so why would I have an obligation to take action against them?

It is a fact of life that we all must live amongst people who we think are terrible human beings. Of course I haven’t the slightest idea what a person’s views are for almost everyone I interact with. I give everyone the assumption that they deserve respect until proven otherwise.

Given the context of the thread it’s ironic that you don’t seem to understand what it means to give the assumption of respect to people. I think you edited your disparaging remarks to me. It was hilarious to read those remarks given the context of the discussion at hand. Feel free to put them back. I don’t mind them.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#178

Post by skyyler »

Gothmog69 wrote: post #148
skyyler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what facing structural oppression feels like. You can have the right skills and competency and mindset and disposition but will be looked over because you don’t fit the norm.

Yup but still a poor attitude to have. I feel this way often times as a white male in tech, that they would rather hire literally anyone else if they can add some much desired "diversity" but I'm sure you would disagree that this is the case. Better for me to try anyways and have the best possible outlook even if I believe the cards are stacked against me.

>I feel this way often times as a white male in tech

Wait, you feel like you face structural oppression as a white man in tech?

Could you explain what challenges you face as a result of your gender identity and race?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#179

Post by notahacker »

hayleox wrote: post #119
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…

From the essay: "Consumers have emphatically rejected brands that ventured too far into wokeness. The Bud Light brand may have been permanently damaged by it." What Bud Light did was hire an influencer to promote their product in an Instagram video (and then of course they later backtracked). The only thing "woke" about the video was that the influencer was a trans woman. If Paul Graham would like to elaborate on thi…

Indeed. I mean, an article on censorious "priggishness" could have easily picked outrage mobs boycotting brands over deeming a trans person worthy of association as evidence that the "woke" people didn't have a monopoly on self righteousness and censoriousness.

Instead, he effectively endorsed the position that trans people were "woke" simply for existing and the consumers cancelling them had a point.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#180

Post by axiomo »

watwut wrote: post #137
lubujackson wrote: post #62

I'll just say it must suck being precisely in the crosshairs of a political proxy battle. The truth is, neither the left nor the right really give a shit about transgenders but use them to rile up their bases. First, the brief "woke" movement which was soon taken by the right and extrapolated to the extreme. It's the same tactic used by the right for any issue - when I was a kid it was "if gays can marry, then they w…

I dont think transgender are in the crosshairs of a political proxy battle. The issues is that many people feel disgust and hate over the idea of transgender. And whenever they become visible, they lash out and react.

It's more the behavior of trans activists that gets people riled up.

There's really no need for men who say they're women to be going around conquering everything that's for women and then admonishing people as bigots or transphobic when they object to this.

Instead they could, you know, just live their lives peacefully without launching attack after attack on women's rights. It'd be better for everyone.

Post reply on HN