Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#121
post #4
post #2

Since Paul wrote that, people have made so many more things part of their identity, including JavaScript which he points out in the essay was not a particularly identity-charged topic in 2009. With the rise of the frameworks, it has become an identity-charged topic with JS devs now segregated into tribes that insist on using their preferred framework for every webapp they build. It's not about assessing the right too…

In tech, people ascribe you an identity as much as you claim one yourself. When I am not around, I have been described to people as "A DevOps guy" or "A Network Guy". People then treat me accordingly. But, being human (or an approximation thereof), I am not just one thing.

> In tech, people ascribe you an identity as much as you claim one yourself.

Indeed that is true of most kinds of identity. People will ascribe you racial and gender identities which may or may not match the ones you wish to claim for example.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've both got the right answer and explained it with a very negative framing. Gender and Sexual Minority, LGBTQ+, and queer all describe a largely similar set of folks. Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces - groups like the Gay Liberation Front - who were willing to fight back (violently if necessary) against violence and discrimination. Queer…

> Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces I guess "radical" would have been a better choice of terminology than "woke-leftist", but really you're looking at very similar communities that share an ideological heritage and who tend to complain about any terminology people use for them. The term "woke" is new but the basic ideology goes back to 70's radicals a…

I would add, "woke" is not necessarily a negative label, and indeed was originally used most commonly in a positive sense intended to describe people who were awake to the reality of the world. It's only more recently come to be used a pejorative mocking the original usage.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#123
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it is a fact, I mean, these days there are heterosexual people who call themselves queer.

> who call themselves In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).

> In which sense?

Generally in a political sense (related to the gay sense). Someone who does not accept heterosexuality as a norm or default way of being, even though it may something that they personally prefer.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#124

It seems to be the thing nowadays to be preoccupied with the notion of your own identity, and I can't help but feel like it's just navel gazing. Maybe it's social media and the culture of self promotion, but I find it pretty hollow and uninteresting. I have a young kid in my family that's fixated with gender and sexuality and they said one day "I just want to get diagnosed so I know what I am ," to which I said "It's…

Poor kid. He's been subjected to what amounts to child abuse. Sadly, that is the norm.

Some say that we have an identity crisis in part because of our liberal, existentialist, non-committal notions of "freedom". It's also what drives much of the opportunism of FOMO and ADHD. The very notions of sacrifice, commitment, suffering for a good, and devotion repel us (whatever "commitments" we do have are merely emotional phantasms, changing as the wind blows). We reject our familial, communal, ethnic, national, religious commitments -- even commitment to the truth as such -- which we have come to detest as "restrictive" or "oppressive" in favor of a misguided notion of "autonomy"...except that this "autonomy" is achieved precisely by rejecting all that helps us understand who we are from different angles and at varying depths. We become socially alienated and cut off from tradition as such, saddled now with the responsibility of figuring it all out ourselves. What a Herculean task!

Of course, nature abhors a vacuum. The irony is that the abolition of authority and tradition only predisposes us to the tyranny of power. (Incidentally, that's how "community organizing" works: it foments animosity against legitimate authority and its legitimate exercise and then uses it to unseat that authority, whether personal or in the form of tradition, not to "free" people from the real or imagined tyranny of that authority, but to remove what is an obstacle to the power of the dictator who outstrips any of the abuses of his predecessors.) Nobody is easier to control than an ignorant, irrational, atomized human being enslaved to his emotions and to his desires, in a state of fear, disorientation, and disregulation. A man has as many masters as he has vices, spake Augustine.

It is little wonder that, given this crippled and desiccated state, we look for our "identities" in superstition and petty nonsense and in what remains, what is base, as if we were trying to divine the future from tea leaves. We think that the kernel of the "true self" lies hidden in what is base, not in human nature as a whole and what it is ordered toward. Reason is a liar. The orgasm is our beatific vision. Consumption is our creed. Emotion is our revelation.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, queer encompasses more than just gay and lesbian people. Non-binary people can be queer, heterosexual trans people can be queer, asexual people can be queer. Same with polyamorous people.

Doesn't that make it not a fact then, if people can just opt in and out to being queer?

I would argue that no identity is a fact. All identities are beliefs on the part of the person doing the identifying. To identify something as X is to express the belief that it is X.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#126

Thought provoking post, but the idea doesn't work. Yes, people are less inclined to get into arguments about specific technical tools if they are not educated about them. Yes, people DO get into arguments about religion even if they aren't educated about it. The difference is that religion addresses matters that ARE central to people's identity. It addresses choices that EVERYONE must make, and therefore everyone has…

> The difference is that religion addresses matters that ARE central to people's identity. It addresses choices that EVERYONE must make

In the essay, identity is associated with a particular religious/political/social perspective on the human condition, not the human condition itself. Keeping identity small is basically converging on "being human"-- the choices everyone must make as you note -- without the false certainty that comes with loyalty to a religious/political/social identity.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#127

Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer. That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this). Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.

At the risk of being wildly misunderstood, you can still choose to minimize your "queerness footprint" in public discussions. You can let your experience with that inform your opinions without making it into An Issue that you are queer.

It's not easy, but it's possible and I think a lot of our perception of people "at the top" being uniformly a particular profile is partly a reflection of the fact that people who get good at not making their identity into An Issue are the ones who get more tolerance in public spaces. I think this gets misinterpreted by many people as "That person is not queer" rather than "We don't know. They haven't actually said and it is a private matter anyway."

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#128

It seems to be the thing nowadays to be preoccupied with the notion of your own identity, and I can't help but feel like it's just navel gazing. Maybe it's social media and the culture of self promotion, but I find it pretty hollow and uninteresting. I have a young kid in my family that's fixated with gender and sexuality and they said one day "I just want to get diagnosed so I know what I am ," to which I said "It's…

Poor kid. He's been subjected to what amounts to child abuse. Sadly, that is the norm. Some say that we have an identity crisis in part because of our liberal, existentialist, non-committal notions of "freedom". It's also what drives much of the opportunism of FOMO and ADHD. The very notions of sacrifice, commitment, suffering for a good, and devotion repel us (whatever "commitments" we do have are merely emotional p…

"Child abuse"? Please, give me a break. This is no different to any kid muddling through adolescence and trying to make sense of their emotions as they grow up. Just because it's about gender and sexuality doesn't make it child abuse.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#129
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, queer encompasses more than just gay and lesbian people. Non-binary people can be queer, heterosexual trans people can be queer, asexual people can be queer. Same with polyamorous people.

Literally anyone can be queer. Its a meaningless tag.

Literally anyone can be Christian, but that doesn't make it a useless tag. It's a linguistic and mental shortcut that has utility despite the relative ease of application.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces I guess "radical" would have been a better choice of terminology than "woke-leftist", but really you're looking at very similar communities that share an ideological heritage and who tend to complain about any terminology people use for them. The term "woke" is new but the basic ideology goes back to 70's radicals a…

I would add, "woke" is not necessarily a negative label, and indeed was originally used most commonly in a positive sense intended to describe people who were awake to the reality of the world. It's only more recently come to be used a pejorative mocking the original usage.

So the opposite of the reclaimed slur someone mentioned.
Post reply on HN