It just can't be the case that this kind of content, which would never ordinarily survive on the front page if written by someone else, has a place here simply because Paul Graham wrote it. I say this as a moderate, of the accidental variety, myself! But if this would get shot down if it appeared in The Atlantic or The New Republic --- and it would, and should --- it shouldn't get a pass just because Harj Taggar and…
Why it should ? How that wouldn't be censorship? and if so how you justify it?
The Two Kinds of Moderate
291–300 of 382 posts
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#292It just can't be the case that this kind of content, which would never ordinarily survive on the front page if written by someone else, has a place here simply because Paul Graham wrote it. I say this as a moderate, of the accidental variety, myself! But if this would get shot down if it appeared in The Atlantic or The New Republic --- and it would, and should --- it shouldn't get a pass just because Harj Taggar and…
Why not? If the Atlantic is so damn smart, why don't I give a shit about their forum? And why don't you? Maybe PG's essays wouldn't survive on the front page (all glory be to the masses who bestow their wisdom on us by voting!) if they were written by someone else. But they weren't written by someone else. "Guys! You guys are voting all wrong!" feels lame. Sorry?
You've been here since 2010 and know the answer to your own question.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do I need to invent a special term for myself? No. yes. Unless you don't want to ever convince anyone of any of your views. You haven't understood the "intentional moderate". Contrarianism is a shortcut to the respect owed to skeptics. The purpose of the intentional moderate is to portray themselves as just like you: "a complicated individual". But unlike you they really aren't. Its a ruse. There is no substantive r…
I think in the context of the current presidential race, Amy Klobuchar could be closest to described as an intentional moderate. Namely someone who focuses on simply just changing laws at the cost of any sort of deeper ideological belief, at least with regards to how she frames her view point rather than by defending her proposals within their own merit she focuses on the compromise aspect. Biden on the other hand is…
I don't think intentional moderates ever run in any party. The point is to give off an impression not to do actual work. At worst some politicians understand "talk less, smile more, don't let them know what you're against or what you're for". I guess you could call this "superficial intentional moderation".
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#294It is so peculiar that anyone believes the United States possesses a "far left" as a force in politics. This requires one to ignore political science and ideology, not to mention the practical politics of the rest of the world, and simply place people on a continuum and draw a line near some perceived median.
I think drawing a line near the median is really the only thing that makes sense. These concepts are relative by nature. Generally, when speaking of how far to the right or left someone is in the US, I think of it as relative to other americans, not to the rest of the world, and especially not relative to some absolute concept of right and left (which falls apart quickly if you give it some thought, as norms change o…
A lot of political science is not really relative. I mean, you can understand the Democrats' and Republicans' positions as relative to each other or even to themselves since they're both always changing, but a reactionary position is by definition more conservative than a progressive position.
Calling the median between today's US Democrats and Republicans "moderate" or "centrist" is not really indicative of any political theory.
I really think the problem is Democrat and Republican are too closely thought of as "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative", however, the parties are distinct from the political theory.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Paul Graham should totally write things like this on his own site! He sure can, but having a platform and competence in one area doesn't mean your skill applies to another. This whole article is a fascinating example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. The idea, of two kinds of moderates is interesting. The framing is, at best weak and at worst very flawed, shallow and a gross oversimplification. The shots at the left, a…
This comment is exactly what I mean about the post being off-topic for the site.
To quote the article:
> and the far right and far left are roughly equally wrong.
So everyone is right some of the time?
> Moderates are sometimes derided as cowards, particularly by the extreme left.
I can name half a dozen right leaning issues that would get me thrown out of a gathering if I expressed my views, maybe even threatened with physical harm.
> If I knew a ... people in the entertainment business, ... Being on the far left or far right doesn't affect how ... how well you sing.
Is followed up with...
> You could be mindlessly doctrinaire in your politics and still be a good mathematician. In the 20th century, a lot of very smart people were Marxists — just no one who was smart about the subjects Marxism involves.
Holly crap this is the most ignorant thing I have read in a long time. There was large attraction to Marxism after the Great Depression. Not only did smart people take it up but droves of them in the "entertainment" industry. Is he completely unaware of the House Unamerican Activities Committee and the blacklisting?
> It's possible in theory for one side to be entirely right and the other to be entirely wrong. Indeed, ideologues must always believe this is the case. But historically it rarely has been.
Both extremes have been bad "historically" but it ignores the common theme of totalitarianism as an overriding ideology.
> For some reason the far right tend to ignore moderates rather than despise them as backsliders. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it means that the far right is less ideological than the far left.
Again, House Un-American Activities Committee ... And just about every issue the US far right champions today. In fact the far right base could be grouped into a few "single issue items" (guns, taxes, abortion)
> But if the ideas you use in your work intersect with the politics of your time, you have two choices: be an accidental moderate, or be mediocre.
This whole article is mediocre, it is a right leaning assessment and bent on politics. Shades of Ben Carson, pyramids as grain storage.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#296> Intentional moderates are similar to those on the far left and the far right in that their opinions are, in a sense, not their own. The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. Well, no, not at all. People on the left and on the right tend to have a worldview and attitude that is the foundation of their stances on issues. It is not a coincidence that…
It'd be a stretch to say political opinions are for the most part a result of internal reasoning and self-formed world view, rather than indoctrination by a social group that suffers hard from confirmation bias. People are, overall, NOT good at thinking critically, and tend to accept the paradigm to which they have to most exposure. They tend not to reach outside of their bubble for clues about what could be wrong wi…
It's not reasoning, it's basic values. People are made differently. That's why there are political differences between men and women, weightlifters and runners, straight men and gays, and dynamic typing and static typing fans. And you can trace the common reasoning in the baskets of political views. This isn't like some difference between communists and people who would be communists if it weren't for Econ 101. It's differences in regard to questions like whether you're willing to accept that some people will have a worse lot in life. And is moderation in the pursuit of justice a virtue or not?
The moderates are the people whose opinions are most formed from indoctrination.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, posting something to your own site isn't by itself a request to start a debate about it on Hacker News.
When you have a foundational role in hacker news and post a lengthy exposition of your views on a continually contentious topic I would think a reasonable individual would expect engagement. Most importantly the individual themselves is more than capable of making that concept clear himself if he so chooses. We don't need to speak up for him.
Empathy for Paul Graham's predicament is the topic of this branch of the subthread, but it wasn't the point I made at the top of the thread, which is that regardless of whether Graham wants this post on the front page of HN, it doesn't belong here.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I cannot imagine how you'd come to the conclusion that holding moderate viewpoints requires any real courage at all. Expressing moderate opinions on the internet will cause a lot of people of accusing you of being a "fence-sitter" or siding with "the enemy", as well as accusations that you are a coward by people who are agitated that the opinions they hold in such high regard are not shared and are even challenged.…
Yes, and if you think posting something people are going to disagree with on Twitter takes a great deal of courage, you are probably not used to holding any very controversial beliefs at all.
I think the things you think are controversial are not the things that others consider controversial, and you should be aware of any bubbles you might be in. Anything that puts your job, employability, and social standing on the line takes a non-negligible amount of courage - let's not move the goal post by trying to classify what is "great courage" or not.
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'll never understand people's preoccupation with other people's ideas on things it is known those people are not experts on. paul graham has a phd in computer science. he is a successful startup founder and vc. that is the extent of what i'm interested in his opinion on. if a famous political theorist started opining on the organization of software or product/market fit or angel investing how many people here would…
>>paul graham has a phd in computer science. he is a successful startup founder and vc. that is the extent of what i'm interested in his opinion on. Smart people are much more likely to believe that they have intelligent and well-informed opinions on areas outside their expertise. PG himself is no exception.
of course but why is that other people indulge them (or even are taken in)
Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate
#300Why is an article about someone praising how smart and brave their own politics are, on the front page of HN? Definitely not what I come here to read.