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

181–190 of 860 posts

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#181

Post by inglor_cz »

snowwrestler wrote: post #58

Once upon a time, not that long ago, within my lifetime in fact, being gay was targeted for public abuse the way that transgender people are being targeting now. That has declined as people came to understand that being gay, lesbian, bi is part of how a person is made. Under public pressure, a gay person can act straight or at least act not gay. But it doesn't change who they are, doesn't help anyone around them, and…

I agree with you about a transgender person who is 23, but not about anyone who is claiming to be transgender at 13. That is way too young to be sure of such things, and peer pressures/influences exist.

The current backlash is mostly caused by the hardcore activists pressuring for "the alternatives are either gender-affirming care or SUICIDE! SUICIDE! even for 13 y.o.'s"

This attitude is so hysterical that it cannot stand for long.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#182

Post by tiffanyh »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #85
ethbr1 wrote: post #24

Great, cohesive, and clear essay! Hear hear. One thing that I think is underappreciated in our current times, that gets lost on both the left and the right sides -- an individual is more important than their identity . - A specific trans person can also be an asshole. - A specific white man can also be a saint. Extremists on both political sides will scream about the reasons one or the other of those statements is wr…

I'm so tired of hearing "both sides" though.

I think your point is what gets missed in this conversation.

Many people just want to go to work and do their job … and not have social topics or politics discussed at work.

That doesn’t mean they don’t care about those topics, they just don’t feel like work is the correct place for discourse.

And the sense I get from recent moves by tech execs is that they simply want employees to focus 100% on work (because obviously they want to get the most productivity out of their paid staff), and anything non-work related is viewed as a distraction. Regardless of what that non-work topic might be.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#183

Post by James_K »

spokaneplumb wrote: post #132
James_K wrote: post #79

It's interesting to see how tech bros are slowly sliding to the right. The first thing I ever read from Paul was his thing about lisp, and I almost instantly disliked him. There is an intense ego that radiates from his ilk. You see a similar thing with some small business owners. Owning and running a business gives them a feeling of superiority. They feel that they are affluent thanks solely to their own efforts (and…

You may enjoy “Dabblers and Blowhards” from IdleWords, if you’re not already familiar with it. https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm Reading that helped me come to terms with how most of the time when I read PG essays I was a lot less impressed than everyone else seemed to be, and often (any time the topic wasn’t narrowly tech or maaaybe business) his writing struck me as actually bad—not well-reas…

Thanks, a very good read. Made me chuckle a lot. I've always found Paul's obsession with being a "hacker" rather annoying.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#184

Post by Suppafly »

ethbr1 wrote: post #175
Suppafly wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. I feel like the parent comment is pretending to be deep and meaningful but is really just rehashing the 'both sides are the same' argument with a side of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion'. It's nice to say that we should judge everyone for w…

The difference is between judging an individual for what they themselves say vs what identities you associate with them (or even those they associate with themselves).

>or even those they associate with themselves

I see no problem judging someone for the identities that they choose to associate themselves with.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#185

Post by Nevermark »

lisper wrote: post #82
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…

> 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.

He also frames himself, accurately I believe, with his essays and the enabling-of-others nature of his successive accomplishments, as someone who genuinely values winning by helping others win.

But frustration can over simplify issues for all of us, at some point.

And power dulls sensitivity to those with less of it.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#186

Post by CivBase »

gedpeck wrote: post #45
ethbr1 wrote: post #24

Great, cohesive, and clear essay! Hear hear. One thing that I think is underappreciated in our current times, that gets lost on both the left and the right sides -- an individual is more important than their identity . - A specific trans person can also be an asshole. - A specific white man can also be a saint. Extremists on both political sides will scream about the reasons one or the other of those statements is wr…

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you. In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions?

When your creed is basically "I only hate bad people", you have given yourself permission to hate anyone and feel righteously justified about it. And you'll never feel the need to empathize because bad people always deserve whatever bad things happen to them.

You don't need to love everyone unconditionally, but clearly more neuance is needed.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#187

Post by jl6 »

jlebar wrote: post #69
BearOso wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the thing the essay seems to be complaining about. It's not the ethics of equality being targeted, it's the moral hypocrisy. People put on a false front with offensive messaging claiming support of these groups, but the whole purpose is to build clout or benefit themselves. They don't care about the message at all. Messages like "I support lgbtq, and if you don't you're a bigot," are self-aggrandizeme…

Your argument is, "Don't say 'I believe X and if you disagree with me you're bad'. Just say, 'I believe X.'" But then literally in the same sentence , you say, "If you do the thing I don't like (in this case, calling people bigots because they don't support lgbtq) *then you are self-aggrandizing." "Nobody should be called a bigot for their views on lgbtq, but it's virtuous to call people self-aggrandizing for calling…

You can argue hypocrisy or about the way the argument is presented here, but it’s beside the point. Saying “there is only one correct opinion on this matter and if you disagree then you’re a bigot” is exactly what is driving people to oppose those opinions, regardless of whether they are correct. It’s just a really, really poor move, in terms of rhetorical strategy.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#188

Post by didiop »

notahacker wrote: post #179
hayleox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the essay: "Consumers have emphatically rejected brands that ventured too far into wokeness. The Bud Light brand may have been permanently damaged by it." What Bud Light did was hire an influencer to promote their product in an Instagram video (and then of course they later backtracked). The only thing "woke" about the video was that the influencer was a trans woman. If Paul Graham would like to elaborate on thi…

Indeed. I mean, an article on censorious "priggishness" could have easily picked outrage mobs boycotting brands over deeming a trans person worthy of association as evidence that the "woke" people didn't have a monopoly on self righteousness and censoriousness. Instead, he effectively endorsed the position that trans people were "woke" simply for existing and the consumers cancelling them had a point.

Better than endorsing Dylan Mulvaney's regressive and misogynistic "Days of Girlhood" act. A boycott was the right thing to do.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#189

Post by ZeroGravitas »

netsharc wrote: post #55
BearOso wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the thing the essay seems to be complaining about. It's not the ethics of equality being targeted, it's the moral hypocrisy. People put on a false front with offensive messaging claiming support of these groups, but the whole purpose is to build clout or benefit themselves. They don't care about the message at all. Messages like "I support lgbtq, and if you don't you're a bigot," are self-aggrandizeme…

Re your last paragraph: I feel I'm quite left, but it feels like a lot of these activists are busy trying to make enemies out of everyone, which makes me think "I'll just shut the hell up" and, if I ever get confronted as being a part of the enemy class (I'm a heterosexual male, get the pitchforks!) , I'll just point out, "if you don't want me as your ally, then hey, no worries, I can be your enemy."...

Have you heard of or witnessed someone who was confronted as part of the enemy class just for being a straight male?

Where are you going that you need a contingency plan for this situation? Are you expecting this in a work situation, on a campus maybe, or just walking down the street?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#190

Post by ryanjamurphy »

atoav wrote: post #113
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.

Even if your essays win you a Nobel price (Paul Grahams certainly didn't) the writer isn't protected from becoming a bullshit-dispenser. This is why I respect authors that publish a consistent level of quality more than those who hit and miss as if they were throwing darts at a map. And the stuff I have read from Paul Graham is definitly not in the former category. I don't feel he is intellectually honest, either wit…

Would love to hear a few of the consistently-high-quality writers you're thinking about.

I have a pet theory that volume is required for quality, but would love to be wrong so that I can feel less bad about how much I publish!

Post reply on HN