I Met Paul Graham Once

OK, but in practice what sort of common ground do you think we can find here? Because it sure seems like the only possible solution is to give Ukraine enough advanced weapons to exterminate all the orcs. If you have a feasible alternative then I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. The real world is an ugly place and sometimes there is no win-win solution.

Read his essay again, past the first two paragraphs. Look at the social movements he describes as priggish, woke, politically correct etc.

> There was at this time a great backlash against sexual harassment; the mid 1980s were the point when the definition of sexual harassment was expanded from explicit sexual advances to creating a "hostile environment."

> In the first phase of political correctness there were really only three things people got accused of: sexism, racism, and homophobia

Going by the examples pg gives, anyone willing to support women, or LGBT, is a prig. Don't let his abstract theory cloud the rest of the essay. He says it in black and white, his problem is with minorities standing up for themselves.

Ukraine has also bombed civilians and engages in random/statistical attacks against Russian cities - technically a war crime. We can even stretch out the definition of innocents to include Russians or North Koreans that are forced to fight and have no options. Should Ukraine surrender and let the Russians take over? Clearly the path of least violence against innocents on both sides? All I'm saying is things aren't as clear/simple as you try to present them.

Sometimes violence is unavoidable and often it will impact innocents as well.

I agree bad acts need to be called out but you're casting too wide of a net and that just leads to a loss of clarity/nuance. Is there any war action that doesn't fall under "willful acts of violence against innocents"? Are we talking about "collateral" damage? Are we talking about the Geneva Convention?

Why is Russia a bad actor? Because they invaded? They claim to have legitimate reasons, security concerns, treatment of ethnic Russians or separatists in Ukraine? What if we side with them on the legitimacy of starting the war, does that change anything?

> does one always have to shield one's expressions with disclaimers and is one not free to share thoughts however raw in order to express, discuss and learn, update our beliefs?

The problem with one-sided criticism of extremism is:

1. It is indistinguishable from the default extreme-vs-extreme debate. So it amplifies stupidity all around.

2. The takeaway is unclear. Are all programs to counterbalance discrimination just evil things from the bottom up.

3. It ignores middle ground. Guess we better give up on being more fair, and benefiting more from societies outcasts, and more fairness in general? It must be anti-capitalist, -technology, -patriotic, or something?

None of that is helpful.

So yes, I would say quite strongly, addressing complex divisive issues requires wide situational awareness, nuance, intellectual humility, curiosity, honesty, and an aim to move discussion away from division and toward solutions.

Not more reactionary communiques.

---

A completely different approach would be: these DEI programs are out of hand and creating new problems of their own. Not good. But the status quo they are meant to address isn't good either.

So, here are some thoughts on how we could systematically address harmful discrimination in a way that doesn't forget to be fair to everyone else... And fair to everyone is the point of all this, right?

If anyone might be a useful mentor here, it could be pg, if he steps back and thinks about things more. It fits with his general quest to help startups succeed on all fronts. Wisdom for handling side issues well, professionally, creatively, so they don't keep cropping up as distractions.

Does PG or YC have a sensible practical low-ideological view on ensuring hiring and employee treatment reflects and benefits from diversity, avoiding the pitfalls of unfair discrimination, without creating new ones, and defining diversity to mean ALL of us?

That might take more thought. But it would be well worth a PG post. It is also liable to hit more people FROM ALL SIDES or NO SIDES, as worthy of consideration.

It’s infuriating how fast the masks have come off with the tech elites.

They were up on stage today with better seating and vantage points than the hard-working civil servants and diplomats who actually care about making the world a better and more peaceful place.

People like PG need regressive policies to keep the gravy train running because the hacking startup thing works less and less over time. Everything you can solve with a computer has been solved. All that’s left is oligarchs consolidating left and right.

Zuck, Cook, Musk, and the rest need to fuck right off.

PG is just another member of the .01% who is an exploiter of labor. His founders who grind and eat ramen to survive are just individual dice rolls for his portfolio.

I know which side of the class war I am on.