Live data from Hacker News

“I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

archive.oreilly.com

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#42
> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw

Substitute art with anything else, it's still a political attitude. Politics relates to how we live together, or fail to live together, not something politicians do 24/7 and citizens do once every four years. And even that wasn't so (though it is) the author did point out that a lot of technical documentation do contain political examples, it's just kind of invisible and acceptable (to some people) when it's in support of the status quo, which even "not touching X with a barge pole" is. As the biography of Howard Zinn is titled: "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

People who think arresting and sentencing war criminals and other issues are radical far out ideas that upset them so much they can't concentrate should write their own books. Is that too much to ask? Let's say political examples distract people, and make their life worse by some laughable, but still measurable amount. What about the people who get killed by us living in a world where such examples are a valid criticism? They don't even get to read the book and get offended. It all boils down to what class of problems you prioritize, people who read technical documentation not getting distracted or people not getting murdered. I say good on the author.

How many of the people who think the examples are "bad taste" or "polarizing" or "controversial" or other synonyms of doubleplusungood are leveraging the same criticisms in a more effective form? Dare I guess? At the heart of it, I think people really don't like it when someone flaunts not having lost what they did indeed lose or never even acquired.

> When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occasions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.

-- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

You may agree with that being words to live by or not, but you cannot tell someone who lives by them to not live by them and nudge them in the slightest. To get to that point, they likely fought harder battles than you can even imagine, since you avoided them. Don't bring a soggy paper bag to a diamond fight is what I'm essentially trying to say.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#43
This is horrifying. Left and right already read different news, different fiction, different philosophy, and different scientific papers. Are they also supposed to read different O'Reilly textbooks?

Granted, Kissinger should be a war criminal, but how does this press the case against him? It just creates another degree of separation in the divergent realities constructed by the two groups.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#44
post #36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title of the book is "Oracle PL/SQL Programming: Guide to Oracle8i Features", not "Oracle PL/SQL Programming, plus my rambling political edge"

I'm not sure why you think that's a prohibition on political content in examples. Lots of technical books have diatribes concerning many things irrelevant to the subject matter. I read a programming book that dared to have jokes in it once. Gasp ! One even talked about DNA and the wagging of dogs' tails. I suppose we've got to be extra puritanical and dogmatic once our delicate political sensitivities become more imp…

Jokes are what is called comic relief - a psychologic tool to ease the acceptance of the content. I find it hard to imagine a political topic fitting the same function. But who am I to judge the author o his choices of examples. The only way is through not buying the book and maybe giving advice not to buy it either.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#45

I realize this is from 2000 but why would anyone think this person's trite and wholly conventional political opinions are in any way interesting or noteworthy? Strange psychology this guy has, like he's just trying to rattle off as many "controversial" "issues" as he can name, with no regard for his readership... the whole thing comes across as juvenile and narcissistic.

> trite and wholly conventional political opinions

It's weird that you judge political opinions on whether they're "conventional" or not, as if you're looking for only the most novel, original politics.

I'm imagining a stereotypical hipster sipping kombucha, going "Ugh, tax reform used to be cool before all the fucking college kids got into it. I've been into legalizing meth lately--it's so real, y'know?"

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#46
I barely know who Kissinger is but the fact that the author admits it's controversial (in contrast to say calling Hitler a war criminal) is enough for me to avoid this guy's books at all cost.

If I read a technical book I presume the examples are objective. If I would have read it without knowing anything beforehand I would take it literally and all of a sudden become a Kissinger hater without realizing it's actually a subjective political opinion.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#47
post #43

This is horrifying. Left and right already read different news, different fiction, different philosophy, and different scientific papers. Are they also supposed to read different O'Reilly textbooks? Granted, Kissinger should be a war criminal, but how does this press the case against him? It just creates another degree of separation in the divergent realities constructed by the two groups.

Totally agree, we need to find middle ground on Kissinger so as to not offend special snowflake liber... er, wait.

There is only one reality. The rest is politics and self-delusion.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#48

How much more common is this type of person nowadays? Using a technical book to engage in hamfisted virtue signalling is such incredible cringe!

Boy I love when people use the phrase "virtue signaling". It's the new "SJW", in the sense that it's a bullshit phrase used by a political side in what is almost always the result of projecting more than anything else.

It's so much easier than when the same sentiment is disguised and dressed up, so I know more immediately to roll my eyes and move on. Thanks.

edit: Sorry, I shouldn't have replied. Didn't realize this person had negative net karma.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#49
post #2

I think I disagree with him here. I tend to think that examples like his (polarizing topics) are distracting to the message of the content. I teach students, and they are, quite literally, paying me for my knowledge and experience about that subject, not for me to distract everyone with my personal opinions about unrelated issues. I doubt that any of them even know my political beliefs.

Well, I see where you are coming from, and I don't necessarily agree that the examples he chose are very good ones. However, I think the overall point he makes is worth some consideration. Many technical books (consciously or unconsciously on part of the author) frame software as something that primarily satisfies commercial or business interests. If you want, that in itself is a pretty polarising agenda, and I often…

> I recently moved to Canada and I am astounded by how little politics are discussed here, even those places where they should be discussed

If you're in Ontario, take a look at The Agenda with Steve Paikin. It is the gold standard of Canadian political discourse. It fills some of that niche you refer to with well-moderated interviews and discussions with various experts and stakeholders on political topics of regional, provincial or national interest, airing five nights a week on public television and the web.

But, speaking as a Canadian looking in on the US, I often get the feeling that Americans hate each other. I'm glad we don't have as much of that dysfunctional political animosity here. Our conflict-avoidance has its own issues, but we're definitely getting a lot out of the values of peace, order and good government.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#50
post #42

> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude. http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw Substitute art with anything else, it's still a political attitude. Politics relates to how we live together, or fail to live together, not something politicians do 24/7 and citizens do once every four years. And even that wasn't so (though it is) the author did point out th…

Beautifully stated. Makes me appreciate more the people that put themselves out there. It is definitely a hard road to speak up for things you believe in but definitely a necessity to freedom in my opinion.
Post reply on HN