Live data from Hacker News

I Met Paul Graham Once

okayfail.com

571–580 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What “fascism” are we talking about here? A company pulling tampons from men’s rooms? Companies scaling down DEI departments that advocated (probably illegally) in favor of gender and race-based discrimination? Or are you speaking more broadly about the U.S.? Is it fascist to revert to a sane border policy that’s aligned with what most U.S. citizens and legal immigrants want? Or an executive branch that’s actually ru…

we've seen newly government getting from shadow to the front row on the inauguration. No need to hide anymore.

[deleted]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#572
post #463

There are a lot of things that bother me these days. But particularly some things that are pervasive, unnecessary, habitual amplifiers of disagreement. If someone is going to address extremists on an issue, don't just be anti-extremist. What empty courage is that? Address extremists by pushing the dialog back to the real issue. In this case, treating people who have been denigrated for centuries better. Otherwise, un…

> I.e. don't make strong arguments for or against one side of the Israeli-Palestine situation, without acknowledging the strong points you do accept as valid from both sides. What Israel is doing to Palestinians last 77 years it exists is much worse than what Palestinians do to Israel on average from several perspectives by at least an order of magnitude or more (eg. amount of destruction and killing for sure, amount…

Agreed. I do not suggest false equality. Or insipid "it takes two sides" type arguments.

Another advantage of fair arguments, they add credibility for calls to hold the more powerful in a situation to take more responsibility for solutions.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#573
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a fair reading of it. Consider, for example, expanding the definition of sexual harassment to also include creating a "hostile environment". I think that pg's point is that this expansion to include a "hostile environment" makes it fall under the "eye of the beholder", which makes it a lot more vague and arbitrary. Something being vague and arbitrary is the perfect playground for a prig, because…

I agree with the definition pg gives in the first two paragraphs of what a prig with, which is why I suggested you reread past that section. As OP said, DEI initiatives are regularly hollow and performative. Re: dongle gate and the other hypotheticals, sure, not great, I agree enforcing arbitrary rules isn't good for society, and we really gain nothing. Let's look at this essay critically, and let's not doing any leg…

>Do you believe that, as PG says, in 1986 and the following few years, (not now, we'll save that for later, he specifically is talking about the 1980s) this title IX ruling that expanded the definition was misused in a priggish sense, to punish people arbitrarily, and that it did not support women? Talk to some women who were alive at that time, and you'll soon realize that yes, outside of direct sexual advances there are many things that professors would do or say to dehumanize female students. So by giving these students a mechanism to hold professor accountable for dehumanizing them, we are... supporting them!

I have no reason not to believe that Title IX in the 1980s was misused in a priggish sense, other than what you've told me just now.

He doesn't give any examples of how it was misused in the 1980s, but says "...but since for a professor merely being the subject of a sexual harassment complaint would be a disaster whether the complainant was reasonable or not..."

Did this mechanism support women? Perhaps. Was it also misused? Perhaps. Does it support his argument? I don't think I agree that he has an "argument", so much as he is merely telling a story that he believes to be true, and this bit of history is part of that story.

Even if this was never misused in the 1980s, it laid the groundwork for the future.

>Would you trust women in the 1980s to decide for themselves whether or not they were being sexually harassed by a professor in this expanded definition?

Well, I wouldn't trust anyone, in any time period, to have all the power of a judge, jury, and executioner. What I quoted above from footnote 5 indicates that. If there is any kind of accusation, it should be taken seriously, but it should also go through the proper procedure for determining guilt while presuming innocence.

Handing the female students of the 1980s virtually unlimited power to ruin the lives of others with just a word could be said to be "supporting" them, sure, but that comes at the cost of everyone else.

> So who was misusing this? Basically no one.

He gives no examples of this being misused in the 1980s, but he does give an example from the 21st century with Larry Summers.

> I have not heard of any professors suffering from false accusations of sexual harassment.

What can I say to your anecdotes, except... "Great!" Or perhaps it's not great that dozens of your friends have had such bad experiences with their professors.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#574
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a fair reading of it. Consider, for example, expanding the definition of sexual harassment to also include creating a "hostile environment". I think that pg's point is that this expansion to include a "hostile environment" makes it fall under the "eye of the beholder", which makes it a lot more vague and arbitrary. Something being vague and arbitrary is the perfect playground for a prig, because…

I agree with the definition pg gives in the first two paragraphs of what a prig with, which is why I suggested you reread past that section. As OP said, DEI initiatives are regularly hollow and performative. Re: dongle gate and the other hypotheticals, sure, not great, I agree enforcing arbitrary rules isn't good for society, and we really gain nothing. Let's look at this essay critically, and let's not doing any leg…

First, let me say that your comment is thoughtful and makes many good points, and it lacks so many of the strawman arguments that some others have laid out.

Thank you for that.

That said…

> Do you think that men were going around in the 80s accusing professors of sexual harassment?

Yes.

I will be sure to tell my roommate from college that you don’t think he exists.

> So who was misusing this? Basically no one. Who was benefiting from it? Women. So this is not priggish in any sense.

I’ve been involved directly or indirectly with the academic world since the 80s.

The best I can tell, you weren’t alive then. I’m not sure who you got your information from, but it seems to be selective. There have been more than a few abusers of the “expanded definition”.

First, some real articles:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/12/17/harvard-zealots-...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_rape_hoax

These provide some well-documented examples of questionable title ix implementation. There are many more examples if you look for them.

> I have had quite literally dozens of friends tell me their experiences where professors dehumanized, belittled them

I’m a straight, white male (allegedly a privileged class in these situations), and this has happened to me more than a few times, usually from professors (usually older) who were known to have a bad attitude.

I imagine that a lot of these cases are not related to being a woman — it’s just general shithead behavior from the professor that should probably be addressed by the administration, but not under the umbrella of title ix or sexual harassment.

Of course, crossing the line of asking for sexual favors does fall under that umbrella.

As for anecdata, I know of:

- a professor who was investigated for sexual harassment and inappropriate touching for… wait for it… tapping students on the shoulder to get their attention in a silent way. I was the observer. I saw what he did. When I asked the accuser if this was the behavior she was referring to, she said yes. It was a total nothingburger, but it put a massive stress on his life unnecessarily. An appropriate complaint/suggestion would have been to ask him to speak softly from a distance, which is what he did moving forward. There was no reason to put this under the umbrella of sexual harassment.

- a k-12 teacher who was accused of sexual harassment for engaging in standard classroom safety procedures. Lost his job. Later found not guilty on the criminal side, and won a civil lawsuit for wrongful termination (and other things). In this case, it was the administration weaponizing title ix against a teacher while putting minors (the students) into the middle of it.

- a professor was accused of sexual harassment for… again… wait for it… sliding a handout across the table to a student in a small graduate seminar… after the student decided to sit as far as possible from everyone else in the seminar. This was her statement, and it was corroborated by other students, and the action was not seen as sexual or aggressive by anyone else. This student had accused every professor she had taken a class from with some sort of abuse, so the investigation was cursory. Again, why should someone like this be able to weaponize some of the powerful systems of title ix so frivolously?

Lest you believe that this is only a teacher/professor thing, similar examples exist in administration as well as the private sector. Often they aren’t spoken about publicly in order to avoid giving other bad actors ideas that they can work with.

I could go on, but I will spare you.

Let me be clear, I do believe that something needed to be done in the 80s to address callous behavior (both by educators and by the population at large), but I think that too many actions started to be categorized as sexual harassment that were probably better addressed in a different way (probably much lower key) and under a different label. Sexual harassment accusations end up being a scorched-earth approach to conflict resolution, and sometimes the best way to affect change of minor issues is with a deft touch.

Getting back to the original point, when I read pg’s essay, my experiences jibed with his interpretation of events during that time frame. It’s fine to disagree with him, but I hope that folks will at least take a charitable read of his interpretation of the zeitgeist of that time — at a minimum, it passes the sniff test for me.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#575
post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

the tech billionaires didn't give us any of that (though you might have a case with the iPhone and SpaceX); they're just the ones who monetized it It's like Carnegie setting up 2500 libraries but charging access to them and becoming an even greater billionaire in the process

Making these things make money is hard and it's really valuable. Without that people won't get to use them.

There is a list of defunct spaceflight companies :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_spaceflight_c...

Here is a very small list of just a few of the defunct internet companies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_online_compan...

It's also worth considering how many millionaires were made by the companies that the billionaires started.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#576
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…

Well, before CEOs, we wanted to be hackers. Watching CCC 24 reminded me of what that felt like.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#577
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> At least we got some good universities out of the 19th century iteration. You mean the ones that turned around and produced the current market fundamentalist and elite-run culture we have today? What a coincidence.

[deleted]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#578
post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the tech billionaires didn't give us any of that (though you might have a case with the iPhone and SpaceX); they're just the ones who monetized it It's like Carnegie setting up 2500 libraries but charging access to them and becoming an even greater billionaire in the process

Making these things make money is hard and it's really valuable. Without that people won't get to use them. There is a list of defunct spaceflight companies : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_spaceflight_c... Here is a very small list of just a few of the defunct internet companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_online_compan... It's also worth considering how many millionaires were made…

like I said, you might have a case with SpaceX (though how much does that help humanity? not so sure)

internet companies become defunct because some other company puts them out of business - if we had never had Facebook we would still have had a way to keep in touch online

> It's also worth considering how many millionaires were made by the companies that the billionaires started.

who cares? the world doesn't need more millionaires or billionaires

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#579
post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't argue that, but there are cultures out there that disagree - so how can it be universal?

What "culture" says it's okay to treat humans as if they are animals?

Whoever it is you think is out there doing it and promoting it. That's why we have phrases like "a culture of harassment", "a culture if lies", etc.

The point is things that appear as universal absolutes are not the same for everyone.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#580
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is spot on. The confusion for me comes from the fact that, as far as I can tell, I've never met a prig in real life. And yet they seem to be the biggest political issue of our time. Is it because I live in Australia and it's more of a US thing? Or is it because I'm not online as much maybe? I find it really confusing.

What Graham means by "prig" is, say, an HR person who informs you that you need to use your coworker's preferred pronouns.

That is just basic human decency, not being prig.
Post reply on HN