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

341–350 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#341

Post by foxglacier »

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…

Do you not see how you're part of the problem? You're applying cherry-picked standards that just happen to match what Trump did because you'd already been brainwashed to hate him and his supporters. What if you judge presidents by how many deaths they cause in wars instead of what dirty jokes they made? Wouldn't that be more meaningful measure of badness? No because you're cherry-picking to support your pre-existing hatred that you were driven to by the news and social media.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#342

Post by musicale »

afavour wrote: post #9

In the long run I think realizations like the authors are healthy ones. PG is not a hero. He's just a guy. A guy who entered into business transactions with a number of people, many of whom benefitted greatly (as did Paul himself). I'm not saying any of that as a negative! Just that we have a habit of attributing superhuman characteristics to folks (Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize comes to mind) and ending up dis…

> socially regressive robber barons

At least we got some good universities (and a somewhat functional transcontinental rail system) out of the 19th century iteration.

> In 1975 the student body of Stanford University voted to use "Robber Barons" as the nickname for their sports teams. However, school administrators disallowed it, saying it was disrespectful to the school's founder, Leland Stanford [1]

It's a shame that the school's administrators (perhaps fearing the wrath of alumni and donors) were so humorless – "Stealin' Landford" would have been a highly entertaining mascot, and one oddly appropriate for the gridiron.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#343

Post by gedpeck »

petsfed wrote: post #330
gedpeck wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal view is as follows. American society has reached a point of no return. Something has to give before a new equilibrium has been found. As an extreme example look to Nazi Germany. The repugnant views that were normal in 1939 Germany weren’t normal in 1960 Germany. A similar (though far less extreme) change will happen in the U.S. I have no desire to change anyone’s mind about their political views. Anyone w…

I'm going to be pedantic for a second, as a sort of dark coping mechanism: >Anyone who supports a known rapist and felon and who openly takes bribes can not be convinced of anything Clearly, they can be convinced of something , just not anything you or I might consider good . In all seriousness, I think the truly disturbing thing about this whole sorry situation is just how many people don't actually hold any durable…

Clearly, they can be convinced of something, just not anything you or I might consider good.

Yeah. I should have been more precise.

The country deserves what is going to happen.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#344

Post by redcobra762 »

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.'

I would argue it's currently en vogue to incessantly repeat the argument that "Both Sides" have bad actors, thus commenting on the bad actors of one side is an incomplete argument.

It's tiring and non sequitur to hear such arguments however, as what the opposition to a position does is wholly unrelated to the arguments related to that position.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#345

Post by sho_hn »

mellosouls wrote: post #324
ziddoap wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The downgrading of exceptional individuals like PG to mediocrities is no healthier than placing them on pedestals. Recognizing that we're all just people is certainly healthier than placing people on pedestals.

It's obvious he's a person, the parent comment implies that's the extent of his achievements.

I don't think that extent of achievements equals heroism. History is filled with enormously productive people we judge very poorly for theirs.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#348

Post by sho_hn »

agent281 wrote: post #161
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. I…

pg writing about non-tech topics has always rubbed up against Gell-Mann Amnesia.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#349

Post by tome »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #309
cabbaged wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Islam is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion of peace. It is. The word Islam and Salaam are etymologically tied to the word "peace". If your definition of peace is "never wages war", well there's no country or political regime in the world like that. Even India, which was liberated by the famous nonviolent philosopher Gandhi, did not last many years without needing to wage war and take territory. Isl…

> Islam is the only remaining religion with a political element and an existing desire for statehood

What do you mean by this? There are several countries that declare themselves to be Islamic.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#350

Post by gedpeck »

foxglacier wrote: post #341
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…

Do you not see how you're part of the problem? You're applying cherry-picked standards that just happen to match what Trump did because you'd already been brainwashed to hate him and his supporters. What if you judge presidents by how many deaths they cause in wars instead of what dirty jokes they made? Wouldn't that be more meaningful measure of badness? No because you're cherry-picking to support your pre-existing…

Cherry picked facts? Ha. Being a rapist is a cherry picked fact?

The difference between me and you is that I consistently apply my morals and ethics. I don’t support rapists and bribe takers for President. I didn’t support Clinton when it became clear what he did and I don’t support Trump. Have a higher standard for yourself. Don’t support bad people.

I do judge George W. Bush for the deaths he caused. Obama too.

Post reply on HN