3 ms·

Your comment reads as defensive, and as though you are intentionally missing the point. The point is: PG appears to be a dishonest writer. He is not writing wit

Your comment reads as defensive, and as though you are intentionally missing the point. The point is: PG appears to be a dishonest writer. He is not writing with the evenhanded pursuit of truth in mind, but with a very particular, convenient (self-serving) truth to support. He seems to consistently ignore any strain of thought (of which there are many, see: the entire humanities) which would generate a more nuanced view. GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong". Nevertheless, to indulge you, I will say: PG is wrong. There is more to life and contributing to society than just coming up with new important ideas. Yes new important ideas can lead to more food, more materials, or even in some cases (though certainly not in PGs case) deeper relationships. But there are many meanings to life, and not all of them start with increasing productivity. PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses. They are useful, but they are not everything, or even the most important thing. In fact, they're a luxury. They're one of the least important things in my life.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
> GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong". It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. > PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses. I'd be surprised if YC's investment portfolio didn't include both farming and construction startups. But I haven't looked. (Although this isn't raising a kid, Legacy helps people have them: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy which happens to be quite relevant for my life.) Of course there's more to life. But that's true about any idea you could talk about. Why talk about anything at all, if there might be more to life? (I recently tried to face this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 ... Some of the replies were very good.) You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  >You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty. This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie. I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes. >It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no need to agree to this.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    > He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. As for the self-serving part, I don't think it's a bad thing to write about one's own experiences.
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      Writing about ones own experiences may not necessarily be self serving. Ignoring others experiences whole cloth in order to make a point that benefits you is self serving. >Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. First of all, this is the wrong way to interpret my point. I'm making a point about ignorance. You need to look for whats not there, not what is there. Second, yes as it happens I can: https://twitter.com/geofft/status/1337895041990356994 https://twitter.com/geofft/status/1337895041990356994 Is a racist who simply never talks to any POC, cites any of their work, or hires them, not racist just because they never explicitly say they hate minorities?
  - zd123 5y ago
    You are absolutely right, but some people are unable to read between the lines. For them its not true unless pg writes it down in a confession in his essay.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

> GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong". It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. > PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses. I'd be surprised if YC's investment portfolio didn't include both farming and construction startups. But I haven't looked. (Although this isn't raising a kid, Legacy helps people have them: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy which happens to be quite relevant for my life.) Of course there's more to life. But that's true about any idea you could talk about. Why talk about anything at all, if there might be more to life? (I recently tried to face this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 ... Some of the replies were very good.) You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty.

philosopher1234 5y ago
>You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty. This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie. I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes. >It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no need to agree to this.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  > He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. As for the self-serving part, I don't think it's a bad thing to write about one's own experiences.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Writing about ones own experiences may not necessarily be self serving. Ignoring others experiences whole cloth in order to make a point that benefits you is self serving. >Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. First of all, this is the wrong way to interpret my point. I'm making a point about ignorance. You need to look for whats not there, not what is there. Second, yes as it happens I can: https://twitter.com/geofft/status/1337895041990356994 https://twitter.com/geofft/status/1337895041990356994 Is a racist who simply never talks to any POC, cites any of their work, or hires them, not racist just because they never explicitly say they hate minorities?
- zd123 5y ago
  You are absolutely right, but some people are unable to read between the lines. For them its not true unless pg writes it down in a confession in his essay.