I Met Paul Graham Once • Hacker News Board

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#251

Post by jlebar » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:17 PM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #187

jlebar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is, "Don't say 'I believe X and if you disagree with me you're bad'. Just say, 'I believe X.'" But then literally in the same sentence , you say, "If you do the thing I don't like (in this case, calling people bigots because they don't support lgbtq) *then you are self-aggrandizing." "Nobody should be called a bigot for their views on lgbtq, but it's virtuous to call people self-aggrandizing for calling…

You can argue hypocrisy or about the way the argument is presented here, but it’s beside the point. Saying “there is only one correct opinion on this matter and if you disagree then you’re a bigot” is exactly what is driving people to oppose those opinions, regardless of whether they are correct. It’s just a really, really poor move, in terms of rhetorical strategy.

I agree that people don't like being called out for their views (on race, lgbtq, women, whatever). They would rather be left to believe what they believe in peace and not face the disapprobation of others.

Calling individuals may even further radicalize them, as you say. I am not convinced on this point, I sort of think their mind is not changing either way, but maybe I am wrong.

What I am sure of is, it is not the responsibility of people whose rights are being taken away to be polite to their oppressors for the sake of rhetorical strategy.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#252

Post by zug_zug » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:22 PM UTC

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…

Good thought. The only change I'd make, to make your neutrality explicit, is to say

- A specific trans person can be an an asshole. A specific trans person can be a saint.

- A specific white man can be an asshole. A specific white man can be a saint.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#253

Post by lisper » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:25 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #146

lisper wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "just" in the GP implies that the author did intend for them to be mutually exclusive.

No, the word "just" in "He's not a hero. He's just a guy" indicates that he's not a hero. "Just" applies to the "just a guy" part, not to the "entered business transactions" part.

In conversational English, the phrase "He's just a guy" carries an idiomatic meaning along the lines of, "This person is no different from anyone else. He has no special power or influence or insight." And that might be true with respect to insight, but it is clearly not true with respect to power and influence. And that is why, when PG says something tone-deaf, it can hurt more than when some rando does it.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#254

Post by inglor_cz » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:32 PM UTC

spokaneplumb wrote: post #242

inglor_cz wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hardcore anti trans-activists on the right would like to make life so miserable for transpeople as to essentially eliminate them from public life entirely." You may be right, but the anti-trans backlash in the context of the anti-woke backlash is much wider than just a few hardcore anti-trans activists on the far right. And it mostly revolves around two issues: a. Very young kids being treated in invasive or hard-to…

Those two things already barely exist. I’m skeptical it’s possible, in a nation of hundreds of millions, to get them much closer to not existing than they already are. So if those are the parts really bothering people… it sure seems like a case of looking for something to be upset about, in which case attempting to address their grievances won’t help. Or, a case of being told by people who are exaggerating the situat…

It is more like "outrageous things dominate the news cycle". It is not even a new thing; on a similar note, already in the 1990s, people started believing widely that child abduction from the street was a real danger in their own communities.

That said, the politicians meet the demand, sometimes to their own detriment. The Trump campaign could only deploy the "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them" slogan because Kamala herself, in 2020, felt the need to conform to then-prevailing winds and declare that she would fund gender-change surgeries for prisoners from taxpayers money.

Is that a thing? No, as far as we know, 0 prisoners asked for a taxpayer-funded gender change surgery before or after, and there was probably no risk for Kamala in 2020 if she brushed that question aside as marginal and irrelevant.

But she wanted to prove her progressive credentials on a thing that barely existed, and the thing that barely existed turned viciously against her four years later.

Maybe it would be better if politicians just didn't chase barely existing things in EITHER DIRECTION.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#255

Post by r0p3 » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:32 PM UTC

r0p3 wrote: post #40

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…

It is not narrowly scoped, it states that we need to stop another "wave" of "social justice piggishness" which would include challenging the gender identity framework the author is using among other things. It also makes broad claims about social justice politics writ large. Having read it carefully I found the hn thread interesting and it correctly criticized the essay's lazy reasoning.

Sorry my mistake I meant "priggishness"

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#256

Post by tokioyoyo » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

axiomo wrote: post #248

tokioyoyo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always been baffled about people who care about it. Just for a hot second sit down, and think how many times you’ve even talked to a trans person in your life. Like it’s such a tiny percentage of people that extreme majority of people will literally never have a conversation with one in their entire lives. But for whatever reason it occupies the minds of a good chunk of people throughout entire political spectru…

In my social and professional circles I personally know several individuals who have a trans identity. Getting to know them a bit was actually what shattered the gender identity illusion for me. If you consider the issue as a whole from a women's rights perspective, it should hopefully be less baffling.

Honestly, I literally never think about it until it comes up on Twitter or HN and I get reminded of it. It's totally ok to not to have opinions about things that are very much not relevant and have zero consequences to yourself and people around you.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#257

Post by hnthrowaway6543 » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

jrflowers wrote: post #212

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It only “doesn’t work” if your goal is to appear morally impeccable to everyone. If instead of this worrying you > you will be the one who, according to some, is advocating for things that cause harm and is considered a horrible person. you have a set of morals that centers something more or different than theoretical other people’s opinions, your example of the current “conflict in the Middle East” is still a good e…

[flagged]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#258

Post by watwut » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:37 PM UTC

coderc wrote: post #224

watwut wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

>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". I don't know what you're referring to, but if you would like to get specific about it, many authoritative medical organizations, such as the one that presides over Sweden, have declared a halt on procedures such as prescribing puberty blockers to minors. This is an examp…

I am completely sure about that, yes. Because even your "many authoritative medical organizations" thing cherry picks one organization saying maybe and ignores any positive results entirely.

You do not care about which procedures were actually done nor about what it took to get them. Puberty blockers for minors are not something new or done to transgender kids only. They have been used for years for non-transgender kids and they are not the only treatment constantly under attack.

If you cared about puberty blockers safety, you would care about also about when they work, you would care about accessibility when they do work ... and you would not act as if they were so easy to get in the first place.

And that last thing gives the game away.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#259

Post by anonfordays » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:39 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #44

transcriptase wrote: post #32

>A few days ago, Paul Graham published an essay on “Wokeness”. I skimmed it. I couldn’t finish reading it, it made me too upset. … >I’m still not sure what pg thinks “Wokeness” means Hmm

The point he’s making is that Paul did not explain what he thinks “wokeness” means in a coherent way. Which is true.

Paul most definitely explained what he thinks "wokeness" means in a coherent way. The author has an malformed opinion on a piece he claimed to not read in its entirety.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#260

Post by jl6 » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 8:39 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #251

jl6 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue hypocrisy or about the way the argument is presented here, but it’s beside the point. Saying “there is only one correct opinion on this matter and if you disagree then you’re a bigot” is exactly what is driving people to oppose those opinions, regardless of whether they are correct. It’s just a really, really poor move, in terms of rhetorical strategy.

I agree that people don't like being called out for their views (on race, lgbtq, women, whatever). They would rather be left to believe what they believe in peace and not face the disapprobation of others. Calling individuals may even further radicalize them, as you say. I am not convinced on this point, I sort of think their mind is not changing either way, but maybe I am wrong. What I am sure of is, it is not the r…

> What I am sure of is, it is not the responsibility of people whose rights are being taken away to be polite to their oppressors for the sake of rhetorical strategy.

This is very much the TERF line of thinking.