Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
ideolalia.com
Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#2The author starts with a few political comments and then goes into another direction - programming languages. I was expecting a conclusion on the political comments, without finding it.
But, even if Paul Graham has been wrong about language design, it doesn't mean he's been wrong about current affairs or the importance of startups in the coming future.
If anything, his bets have been largely successful and by openly sharing his thoughts he attracts some criticism from the different minded folks, like the author of this essay, who's clearly a smart fellow.
I saw that piece from the NY Times about Coinbase and I feel that it's reactionary to the announcement from Coinbase about not mingling into politics, which I support btw, I don't like the politization of every aspect of our lives.
I've also heard a podcast with Brian Amrstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, and it's not hard to get to the conclusion that he's a great human being.
I may be wrong, but I distrust most of what the NY Times has been publishings in the past few years, particularly because of their focus on politization. I even feel repugnant by it. It feels like a stance that somebody that doesn't believe in progress would take. Somebody that blames others for his problems and thinks that humans are inherently evil. Usually nihilistic.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#3I haven't followed PG much either of late but it was recently brought to my attention by a coworker that he is now on the side of the 'bad guys'.
I'm all for substantial criticism and discussion, and am always desperately looking for it, but this (unequivocally political) essay unfortunately has all of the distinct hallmarks of the simplistic contemporary political discourse.
It takes a great many words to offer no substantial criticism of any of PG's recent thinking but rather hopes to indict his whole person (as an "unserious intellectual") based on a protracted and exhausting discussion of his naive ideas about programming from 20 years ago.
Who is a serious intellectual? What does that even mean? One thing I know is that serious thinking involves going through many ideas, many of them at risk of being naive or flawed, to sort out how to think about the world.
If an "unserious intellectual" is one that puts substantive ideas out into the aether, however flawed, however self-aggrandizing and, well, human, the messenger might be, then I'll take that over whatever you would call this essay. Everybody is wrong about everything, in part.
I propose a heuristic: if you're reading (or writing) anything whose thesis is "X is a bad person" (or "X is a ____", for that matter), perhaps you're participating in a religious game rather than a thinking game. There's no dialectic available after an essay like this, no opportunity for growth. There is just a like or upvote button -- with only the thought that if you press it you might just be on the right side of 'good'.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#4Well I guess it was only a matter of time before people started making posts proclaiming that pg’s lack of conformism is problematic.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#5Not surprising to see that a thoughtful critique of HN's monarch garners such little attention, compared to when the cult leader himself drops some verbal turds for his acolytes to polish.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#6Wow, "Dabblers and Blowhards" (essay) sure has aged well.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#7I've had the same feeling for a long time. To be a Jaron Lanier-type public intellectual, you need to have some humility and curiousity. PG seems to think he's figured everything out already.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#8Not surprising to see that a thoughtful critique of HN's monarch garners such little attention, compared to when the cult leader himself drops some verbal turds for his acolytes to polish.
Lots of votes, but little ‘attention’, as in: little discussion.
Why? Not because of “monarchy” but because there’s little intellectual material in this hit piece. It’s pure ad hominem.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#9Not surprising to see that a thoughtful critique of HN's monarch garners such little attention, compared to when the cult leader himself drops some verbal turds for his acolytes to polish.
Lots of votes, but little ‘attention’, as in: little discussion. Why? Not because of “monarchy” but because there’s little intellectual material in this hit piece. It’s pure ad hominem.
Kind of ironic to invoke a dead language in criticizing this essay, given its content.
Re: Thought Leaders and Chicken Sexers
#10Who is a serious intellectual? What does that even mean? One thing I know is that serious thinking involves going through many ideas, many of them at risk of being naive or flawed, to sort out how to think about the world.
I could name one person but not only is he banned but I would probably be too if I mentioned him.