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

481–490 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#481

Post by echelon »

jhp123 wrote: post #282

I'm not a target of tech's fascist turn, but my head is still spinning from the change of direction. When I entered this industry it was for hackers, nonconformists, weirdos, nerds, people who don't care about titles or clothes or what your genitals are. What particularly stings is that the vipers at the top tricked people into giving away an enormous amount of intellectual property. Zuck is removing tampons from the…

> When I entered this industry it [... didn't] care about titles or clothes or what your genitals are.

Are we experiencing the same industry? Because as an LGBT person, I have experienced a tech industry so drunk and fixated on identity that it can't shut up about it. It's patronizing, insulting, and divisive.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#482

Post by potato3732842 »

wredcoll wrote: post #454
btilly wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is genuinely absurd. 99.99% of the time the issue of 'where do female identify rapists belong' is brought up, it's because someone who disagrees with the broader point is trying to create some kind of gotcha. It happens constantly online. Leftist A will say something about respecting gender self-identification and then rightwinger B will manipulate the conversation so that the leftist is now trying to defend put…

You're missing the point because you're too wrapped up in left-right. The comment above about virtue signaling devolving into extremism could easily be re-written for the social issues relevant to 1500s Europe, 1790s France, or any other time and still be true.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#483

Post by prarro »

djur wrote: post #480
prarro wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy in my comment was about adherence to philosophical beliefs, in response to what appeared to be a suggestion by you that such beliefs should be ignored if someone else finds them to be an inconvenience. Could you explain why you think your analogy works, please?

A vegan doesn't eat tofu at you. Your right to untrammeled adherence to your philosophical beliefs ends the moment that those beliefs result in conduct affecting other people. After that point, some form of balancing occurs.

[flagged]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#484

Post by riantogo »

These days I just feel sad for some of the richest people. First their wealth seem to have pulled them away from their humanity. Now I just see them lead troubled existence and inflict pain on others, amplified by the said wealth. All the money in the world and no humanity or peace at heart.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#485

Post by lmm »

snowwrestler wrote: post #150
coderc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that prigs, as defined in pg's article, are just jumping on the transgender issue because it's an easy way for them to enforce rules. From my understanding, having read both articles, PG might say that the prigs have chosen to ride the lgbt movement. The problem is not with the lgbt movement itself. Unfortunately, this gives the movement a bad reputation. Some prigs aren't lgbt people at all, but they…

Self-congratulatory, self-righteous prigs are all over the place within human society. When people complain about them, the substantive content of their complaint is the context in which they issue it. For example pg is complaining about the prigs who nag everyone about transgender acceptance, but not the prigs who nag everyone to reject and abuse transgender people. Matters of speech, manners, and decorum are conven…

> Self-congratulatory, self-righteous prigs are all over the place within human society.

They try to be. A given social movement will be judged on how well it deals with them - whether it embraces/encourages them (or, worse, makes them its leaders), or discourages them. Bullies, grifters, and sexual predators are everywhere, but "this organisation protects/doesn't do enough against its bullies/grifters/sexual predators" is a legitimate criticism (in cases where it's accurate); it's the same with prigs.

> The core issue for me is whether transgender people can show up in their preferred gender.

Break down what that means. Are you talking about whether these people act in a particular way? Or whether they demand that other people treat them in a particular way? Those are very different asks.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#486

Post by btilly »

wredcoll wrote: post #454
btilly wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is genuinely absurd. 99.99% of the time the issue of 'where do female identify rapists belong' is brought up, it's because someone who disagrees with the broader point is trying to create some kind of gotcha. It happens constantly online. Leftist A will say something about respecting gender self-identification and then rightwinger B will manipulate the conversation so that the leftist is now trying to defend put…

Don't assume bad faith where it doesn't exist.

As I clearly think, given what I said above, most of what trans people want is obviously fair and just. To go through life, being treated as their preferred gender, and not facing discrimination of various kinds for that choice.

But that isn't where we are. Instead we are in a world where Kamala Harris was, completely unforced, recorded talking about protecting trans rights in prisons back in 2019. Trump ran ads showing those clips with the tagline, "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." And now Trump is President.

Is it being brought up now as a gotcha? Absolutely! But back when Kamala was running the first time for President, SHE brought up her support for the policy. Unforced. Because it was how to signal her support for that issue. And now we're all paying the price for how activist extremism creates backlash.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#487

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

ryantgtg wrote: post #353
lisper wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's just a guy. A guy who entered into business transactions with a number of people Unfortunately, that's not true. He is also a well-read and influential essayist. He wields power and influence through his words as well as his money.

Is he well-read? His essay on the origins of wokeness was pure vibes, with hardly any historical accuracy or understanding of sociology. Many here on HN explained it as him not being well-read.

Does this matter if the "vibe" is correct?

Let's all just take a moment to remember that today is inauguration day.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#488

Post by djur »

prarro wrote: post #483
djur wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vegan doesn't eat tofu at you. Your right to untrammeled adherence to your philosophical beliefs ends the moment that those beliefs result in conduct affecting other people. After that point, some form of balancing occurs.

[flagged]

Noticeably treating a coworker differently because of your beliefs about their gender identity is not a balanced and pragmatic solution.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#489

Post by LeroyRaz »

This take seems to project a massive amount (of negative falsehood) onto Paul Graham's essay. As I read his essay, Paul Graham does not care one wit about the gender (trans or otherwise) of an individual. He is explicitly criticising those who create arbitrary rules (e.g., the term LatinX) that don't actually serve society but instead serve as virtue signals.

If you are competent, you'll be able to find employment. Yes, discrimination exists, but if there is an abundance of talented trans people, someone is going to exploit that talent pool (by hiring) in an efficient market economy.

Frankly, the author seems a bit egotistical. Being transgender has nothing to do with being woke. People like Paul Graham criticising wokeness are not criticising transgenderism. His essay is not about you (and nobody reading his essay should interpret it in anyway as being against you).

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#490

Post by cycrutchfield »

YZF wrote: post #425
gedpeck wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mostly about willful acts of violence against innocents. This might be a nuance that is too subtle though. Bad acts and bad actors should be called out. Russia is the bad actor in the Ukrainian invasion. Hamas and IDF are bad actors in their conflict.

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…

Can you provide specific evidence that Ukraine is intentionally targeting civilians, and not (for instance) flying a drone that gets affected by GPS jamming and hits a building unintentionally?
Post reply on HN