8 ms·

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors othe

The biggest problem I have with Paul’s writing on these topics is the misanthropic undertones. The classification of folks as “conventional minded” mirrors other socially reductive language like referring to people as “simps,” “NPCs,” and more. Paul believes he is partly responsible for engaging a social immune response to the intolerance he perceives — forgetting that immune responses are inflammatory by nature and often destroy large amounts of healthy tissue and in some cases, entire organisms. I don’t think his assertions are wrong but I don’t think castigating people as “aggressively conventional minded” is the right approach. In creating an us-vs-them mentality I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. It’s not enough to have an opinion, there has to be a bad guy or an evil group of people intent on destroying society. I’m not sure how to solve this problem — open to suggestions and brainstorming, it’s just something that’s been on my mind a lot recently.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think, in your second paragraph, you kind of contradicted yourself. If "weaponized victimization and othering" are the problem, well, victimization doesn't weaponize itself. Somebody is doing those things. So now we're at "a group of people are causing these problems". That means that, yes, we kind of do arrive at an us-vs-them mentality - even you do, if you think a step or two further. Now, you could be pleading for the Christian "love the sinner, hate the sin" idea - people are doing these things, but we need to not "other" the people. And that may be a real point - if "othering" is what they are doing, and we think it's wrong, then we need to be careful not to "other" them. At the same time, while we try to figure out how to help them not destroy society, we still need to keep them from destroying society.
bendbro 5y ago
> aggressively conventional minded An aside: One thing I love about VCs is the perfectly fitting, memorable terms they coin. This is a perfect example, I can't stop laughing.
choppaface 5y ago
COVID has changed a lot because it brought into public debate how to evaluate deeply held beliefs about predicting the future. The discussion is high-strung because it covers a life-or-death topic, and it’s so diverse (e.g. science vs region vs conspiracy vs liberty etc) that it forced the quantization of opinions. Once you swap an opinion for a symbol, game theory takes over the conversation. What could help solve this? Real reconciliation of the different perspectives. There’s a common overlap: we all want to live, and we all have nonzero ignorance. The tragedy is that the inordinately rich like paulg continue to divide with these self-serving essays instead of helping other to grapple with the K-shaped recovery we’re in now. The place to innovate now is not in blue-sky futurism but to innovate the recovery of those who COVID hit the hardest.
- seaourfreed 5y ago
  Paul posted this because people are getting fired from their jobs now (directly or indirectly). See his words: "Nowadays, in civilized countries, heretics only get fired in the metaphorical sense, by losing their jobs. ... You could have spent the last ten years saving children's lives, but if you express certain opinions, you're automatically fired." People on the political right have moderate discussions and they are banded aggressively. Here are two examples: * James Woods had 137,000 subscribers removed in two days, by twitter admins * Ron Pauls' entire YouTube channel was censored and removed. This is the "Heretic hunting" point Paul Graham is making.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    The political left using this "heretic" tactic is relatively new, and if it's effective it's because the political right honed it for decades against women, LGBT, foreigners, non-Christians, and any other group they didn't want buying property next to them.
  - rudnevr 5y ago
    You're omitting the detail that Ron Pauls' channel was removed by error and reinstated, and James Woods' acct is ok too.
tptacek 5y ago
Well put. I don't think this is new for him; there's always been a vein in his writing of someone scarred, late into life, by bad experiences in high school. Maybe it's not deliberate, but it is a vibe he sometimes manages to give off. When he writes about Lisp, or (for the most part) about startups, or about being a dad, he seems happy and well-adjusted (I'm looking for a better term but let's roll with that). When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story. He should take a break from this stuff and write about teaching his kids Lisp.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story. Is there anyone at all who writes "happily" about cancel culture? Even SJW's themselves can only give an impression of being perpetually angry and frustrated; they try to present their inner frustration wrt. the world at large as some sort of zeal for superior justice and universal social liberation, but don't quite manage to convince anyone.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    It's not that his writing is unhappy. It's that when he writes about it, he seems like an unhappy person. I don't know if that's the case for "SJWs"; I mostly steer clear of the "cancel culture" discourse.
    - tomcam 5y ago
      > It's that when he writes about it, he seems like an unhappy person. I did not get that impression
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Could just be me.
    - csande17 5y ago
      Is your core concern here the fact that when Paul Graham writes about things he likes, his posts have a positive tone, and when he writes about things he dislikes, his posts have a negative tone?
foobarian 5y ago
Honestly it reads a lot like something one would write who had lousy childhood/schooling experiences. I say that because I had one, and recognize a lot of the points as things I idly fantasize about in a "revenge of the nerds" rubric.
FerociousTimes 5y ago
I didn't pick up on any "misanthropic" undertones in his essay but I echo your sentiment regarding the labels not for the same moralistic reasons you cited but for their weak construction; I'd have opted for "collectivist vs individualist" instead of "conventional vs independent" and "militant vs casual" instead of "aggressive vs passive" but the premise of his thesis remains intact which is that we need to counter the pervasive influence of these elements not to ruin the public discourse for all of us.
- keithwhor 5y ago
  Aha. Great observation; what you interpret as anti-collectivist / pro-individualist I interpret as misanthropic. Admittedly this is probably cultural on my part; growing up in a working class Canadian family bestows different social ideologies. It’s a complaint I have about Canadian culture (not individualistic enough) but I do think a problem with American discourse is it can err so far on the side of individualism as to become misanthropic: the extreme being the sentiment, “I, and people like me, are the only group that matters.” That’s not what Paul is saying here at all. I just think discourse about “social heresy” might be more productively framed as — what do we all agree on, how can we focus on channeling that energy productively, and how can we accommodate the people who disagree? Generally speaking capitalism can be a force for good here if you pick big, juicy problems everyone is excited to solve. Climate, energy, etc. And I think Paul is funding some of those companies!
  - FerociousTimes 5y ago
    I know it's futile to persuade a Canadian not to apologize reflexively anytime they get the chance to but your pro-collectivist explanation is totally fine with me :) Here's my counter backstory, I grew up and live in a very collectivist society and I'm a very individualist minded person by nature, and it's like hell on earth for me, and to spare you the sob story and to get straight to the point, when I come across pieces like the ones authored by PG in defense of individualism and critical of collectivism, it always hits home and I experience a momentary feeling of relief knowing I am not alone in all of this, and when I see how the militant collectivist crowd is wreaking havoc in the West and making people's life a living hell, it really upsets me and I feel helpless reminding me of my own personal circumstances, and that's why I have strong reactions regarding this issue, and why I feel that something must be done to counter this destructive force and stop it in its tracks. PS: I don't view every collectivist movement negatively, that would be extremely absurd and I believe that some currents of collectivism can be very beneficial for society and the entire world but I'm still a staunch defender of individualism and will ever be.
rectang 5y ago
> In creating an us-vs-them mentality I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. It's just plain old tribalist hypocrisy: people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. First-degree intolerance (including but not limited to "x-ism") is acceptable in any amount, second-degree intolerance (intolerance of intolerance) is verboten.
- tomcam 5y ago
  > people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. Where do you get that from the original post? I am not seeing it.
  - rectang 5y ago
    People Graham agrees with who are encouraged to weaponize their victimization: those supposedly accused of "heresy" for their "x-ist" utterances. People Graham disagrees with who are denied: those who speak out about "x-ist" utterances, whom he characterizes as "heretic hunters".
    - tomcam 5y ago
      > People Graham agrees with who are encouraged to weaponize their victimization Just not seeing what you are seeing. Thank you though.
    - FerociousTimes 5y ago
      Do you mean "victimization" or "victimhood"?
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      I think it's the part where a promotion of weaponization is claimed. I'm not seeing that either. Is it weaponization of victimhood to disagree, and warn others of the hallmarks of a problematic position? I don't think anyone was confused about who the 'us' and 'them' are. Every group casts a shadow, so it's hard to talk about a 'they' without there being an 'us'.
tomcam 5y ago
> I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. Would you mind giving me quotes from the post to back up these assertions?
- keithwhor 5y ago
  Simply categorizing human beings as conventional vs unconventional and passive vs aggressive, and then establishing an enemy in one quadrant is an example. Unconventional people are the victims, aggressively conventional people are the others. I think the thing Paul really has a problem with is social brigading and mobs attacking people unfairly. Which is fine; but you can make that argument without painting yourself or people like you as a victim. Otherwise you’re just using the same tactic mobs use. We’re all guilty of this to different degrees because social media algorithms are finely-tuned to propagate outrage and we’re being conditioned to respond to and generate said outrage. I think the way out of the loop is to recognize this pattern and try to break it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - valand 5y ago
    How would you explain an assailant-victim relationship without describing both the assailant and the victim though?
  - tomcam 5y ago
    So no quotes
mhh__ 5y ago
I don't think it's immutable for a given person, but I think it is a sad fact of life that a lot of people are simply unable to have these kinds of discussions - even if they're motivated, which is even more rare.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
He's a thinker. Just not a deep one. He addresses topics just enough to scratch the itch he wants to scratch without putting any meaningful thought into them, which is why his essays are so easy to discard. Sure, they work for like-minded people who want to drink from the tap of the successful businessman stereotype, but they're usually not useful whenever he strays from talking about business.
- earleybird 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  It’s shallow with a purpose; the evasive on details is necessary to use the vague platitudes as a vehicle for validating right-wing propaganda points without making it clear that that is what he is doing. PG is capable of at least somewhat greater depth, and has displayed it on occasion, but it suits his purpose to avoid that here.
rayiner 5y ago
The immune response example is instructive, but supports Graham's position, not yours. Immune responses often are destructive--but we've evolved to have them anyway because the consequences are potentially far worse. There's some really important principles of our society--not just free speech, but meritocracy, color blindness, etc.--that are under attack right now by a novel ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ideology. It's not an ideology that's widely embraced, but has outsize influence in key institutions (kind of like Scientology). And it manipulatively invokes large groups of faceless minorities to paper over the fact that it's being advanced by a small, affluent, relatively homogenous minority: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/
- rectang 5y ago
  I'd never heard of this "Successor Ideology" before today. Turns out it's a straw man crafted by its originator, Wesley Yang, for the sake of tearing down: he opposes it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Yang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Yang > Yang coined the term "successor ideology" in 2019 to describe an emerging ideology among left-wing movements in the United States centered around identity politics. Yang opposes this ideology and believes it may replace traditional liberal values. Never mind "outsize influence", it has no influence at all — nobody follows "Successor Ideology", not even the person who made it up.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    It’s like “trickle down economics.” It’s a phrase coined by its opponents to describe a real ideological trend. Obviously the people advancing that collection of ideas and policies don’t embrace the label and would describe their views differently. That doesn’t mean the label doesn’t describe a real thing. See also: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tell-me-what https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tel... (“Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand”) Like there are lots of people demanding to end the SAT because it’s racist against “Latinx.” What do we call those people?
BobbyJo 5y ago
I don't see it as anything other than a useful label in his writing personally. If you want to talk about something, you need a name for it, and I don't think there is one more apt yet bland one can ascribe to a group of people who take an arbitrary set of conventions to an agressive extreme.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I think, in your second paragraph, you kind of contradicted yourself. If "weaponized victimization and othering" are the problem, well, victimization doesn't weaponize itself. Somebody is doing those things. So now we're at "a group of people are causing these problems". That means that, yes, we kind of do arrive at an us-vs-them mentality - even you do, if you think a step or two further. Now, you could be pleading for the Christian "love the sinner, hate the sin" idea - people are doing these things, but we need to not "other" the people. And that may be a real point - if "othering" is what they are doing, and we think it's wrong, then we need to be careful not to "other" them. At the same time, while we try to figure out how to help them not destroy society, we still need to keep them from destroying society.

bendbro 5y ago

> aggressively conventional minded An aside: One thing I love about VCs is the perfectly fitting, memorable terms they coin. This is a perfect example, I can't stop laughing.

choppaface 5y ago

COVID has changed a lot because it brought into public debate how to evaluate deeply held beliefs about predicting the future. The discussion is high-strung because it covers a life-or-death topic, and it’s so diverse (e.g. science vs region vs conspiracy vs liberty etc) that it forced the quantization of opinions. Once you swap an opinion for a symbol, game theory takes over the conversation. What could help solve this? Real reconciliation of the different perspectives. There’s a common overlap: we all want to live, and we all have nonzero ignorance. The tragedy is that the inordinately rich like paulg continue to divide with these self-serving essays instead of helping other to grapple with the K-shaped recovery we’re in now. The place to innovate now is not in blue-sky futurism but to innovate the recovery of those who COVID hit the hardest.

seaourfreed 5y ago
Paul posted this because people are getting fired from their jobs now (directly or indirectly). See his words: "Nowadays, in civilized countries, heretics only get fired in the metaphorical sense, by losing their jobs. ... You could have spent the last ten years saving children's lives, but if you express certain opinions, you're automatically fired." People on the political right have moderate discussions and they are banded aggressively. Here are two examples: * James Woods had 137,000 subscribers removed in two days, by twitter admins * Ron Pauls' entire YouTube channel was censored and removed. This is the "Heretic hunting" point Paul Graham is making.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  The political left using this "heretic" tactic is relatively new, and if it's effective it's because the political right honed it for decades against women, LGBT, foreigners, non-Christians, and any other group they didn't want buying property next to them.
- rudnevr 5y ago
  You're omitting the detail that Ron Pauls' channel was removed by error and reinstated, and James Woods' acct is ok too.

tptacek 5y ago

Well put. I don't think this is new for him; there's always been a vein in his writing of someone scarred, late into life, by bad experiences in high school. Maybe it's not deliberate, but it is a vibe he sometimes manages to give off. When he writes about Lisp, or (for the most part) about startups, or about being a dad, he seems happy and well-adjusted (I'm looking for a better term but let's roll with that). When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story. He should take a break from this stuff and write about teaching his kids Lisp.

zozbot234 5y ago
> When he writes about cancel culture, or maybe really culture of any sort: different story. Is there anyone at all who writes "happily" about cancel culture? Even SJW's themselves can only give an impression of being perpetually angry and frustrated; they try to present their inner frustration wrt. the world at large as some sort of zeal for superior justice and universal social liberation, but don't quite manage to convince anyone.
- tptacek 5y ago
  It's not that his writing is unhappy. It's that when he writes about it, he seems like an unhappy person. I don't know if that's the case for "SJWs"; I mostly steer clear of the "cancel culture" discourse.
  - tomcam 5y ago
    > It's that when he writes about it, he seems like an unhappy person. I did not get that impression
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Could just be me.
  - csande17 5y ago
    Is your core concern here the fact that when Paul Graham writes about things he likes, his posts have a positive tone, and when he writes about things he dislikes, his posts have a negative tone?

foobarian 5y ago

Honestly it reads a lot like something one would write who had lousy childhood/schooling experiences. I say that because I had one, and recognize a lot of the points as things I idly fantasize about in a "revenge of the nerds" rubric.

FerociousTimes 5y ago

I didn't pick up on any "misanthropic" undertones in his essay but I echo your sentiment regarding the labels not for the same moralistic reasons you cited but for their weak construction; I'd have opted for "collectivist vs individualist" instead of "conventional vs independent" and "militant vs casual" instead of "aggressive vs passive" but the premise of his thesis remains intact which is that we need to counter the pervasive influence of these elements not to ruin the public discourse for all of us.

keithwhor 5y ago
Aha. Great observation; what you interpret as anti-collectivist / pro-individualist I interpret as misanthropic. Admittedly this is probably cultural on my part; growing up in a working class Canadian family bestows different social ideologies. It’s a complaint I have about Canadian culture (not individualistic enough) but I do think a problem with American discourse is it can err so far on the side of individualism as to become misanthropic: the extreme being the sentiment, “I, and people like me, are the only group that matters.” That’s not what Paul is saying here at all. I just think discourse about “social heresy” might be more productively framed as — what do we all agree on, how can we focus on channeling that energy productively, and how can we accommodate the people who disagree? Generally speaking capitalism can be a force for good here if you pick big, juicy problems everyone is excited to solve. Climate, energy, etc. And I think Paul is funding some of those companies!
- FerociousTimes 5y ago
  I know it's futile to persuade a Canadian not to apologize reflexively anytime they get the chance to but your pro-collectivist explanation is totally fine with me :) Here's my counter backstory, I grew up and live in a very collectivist society and I'm a very individualist minded person by nature, and it's like hell on earth for me, and to spare you the sob story and to get straight to the point, when I come across pieces like the ones authored by PG in defense of individualism and critical of collectivism, it always hits home and I experience a momentary feeling of relief knowing I am not alone in all of this, and when I see how the militant collectivist crowd is wreaking havoc in the West and making people's life a living hell, it really upsets me and I feel helpless reminding me of my own personal circumstances, and that's why I have strong reactions regarding this issue, and why I feel that something must be done to counter this destructive force and stop it in its tracks. PS: I don't view every collectivist movement negatively, that would be extremely absurd and I believe that some currents of collectivism can be very beneficial for society and the entire world but I'm still a staunch defender of individualism and will ever be.

rectang 5y ago

> In creating an us-vs-them mentality I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. It's just plain old tribalist hypocrisy: people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. First-degree intolerance (including but not limited to "x-ism") is acceptable in any amount, second-degree intolerance (intolerance of intolerance) is verboten.

tomcam 5y ago
> people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. Where do you get that from the original post? I am not seeing it.
- rectang 5y ago
  People Graham agrees with who are encouraged to weaponize their victimization: those supposedly accused of "heresy" for their "x-ist" utterances. People Graham disagrees with who are denied: those who speak out about "x-ist" utterances, whom he characterizes as "heretic hunters".
  - tomcam 5y ago
    > People Graham agrees with who are encouraged to weaponize their victimization Just not seeing what you are seeing. Thank you though.
  - FerociousTimes 5y ago
    Do you mean "victimization" or "victimhood"?
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I think it's the part where a promotion of weaponization is claimed. I'm not seeing that either. Is it weaponization of victimhood to disagree, and warn others of the hallmarks of a problematic position? I don't think anyone was confused about who the 'us' and 'them' are. Every group casts a shadow, so it's hard to talk about a 'they' without there being an 'us'.

tomcam 5y ago

> I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering. Would you mind giving me quotes from the post to back up these assertions?

keithwhor 5y ago
Simply categorizing human beings as conventional vs unconventional and passive vs aggressive, and then establishing an enemy in one quadrant is an example. Unconventional people are the victims, aggressively conventional people are the others. I think the thing Paul really has a problem with is social brigading and mobs attacking people unfairly. Which is fine; but you can make that argument without painting yourself or people like you as a victim. Otherwise you’re just using the same tactic mobs use. We’re all guilty of this to different degrees because social media algorithms are finely-tuned to propagate outrage and we’re being conditioned to respond to and generate said outrage. I think the way out of the loop is to recognize this pattern and try to break it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- valand 5y ago
  How would you explain an assailant-victim relationship without describing both the assailant and the victim though?
- tomcam 5y ago
  So no quotes

mhh__ 5y ago

I don't think it's immutable for a given person, but I think it is a sad fact of life that a lot of people are simply unable to have these kinds of discussions - even if they're motivated, which is even more rare.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

He's a thinker. Just not a deep one. He addresses topics just enough to scratch the itch he wants to scratch without putting any meaningful thought into them, which is why his essays are so easy to discard. Sure, they work for like-minded people who want to drink from the tap of the successful businessman stereotype, but they're usually not useful whenever he strays from talking about business.

earleybird 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
It’s shallow with a purpose; the evasive on details is necessary to use the vague platitudes as a vehicle for validating right-wing propaganda points without making it clear that that is what he is doing. PG is capable of at least somewhat greater depth, and has displayed it on occasion, but it suits his purpose to avoid that here.

rayiner 5y ago

The immune response example is instructive, but supports Graham's position, not yours. Immune responses often are destructive--but we've evolved to have them anyway because the consequences are potentially far worse. There's some really important principles of our society--not just free speech, but meritocracy, color blindness, etc.--that are under attack right now by a novel ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ideology. It's not an ideology that's widely embraced, but has outsize influence in key institutions (kind of like Scientology). And it manipulatively invokes large groups of faceless minorities to paper over the fact that it's being advanced by a small, affluent, relatively homogenous minority: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/

rectang 5y ago
I'd never heard of this "Successor Ideology" before today. Turns out it's a straw man crafted by its originator, Wesley Yang, for the sake of tearing down: he opposes it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Yang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Yang > Yang coined the term "successor ideology" in 2019 to describe an emerging ideology among left-wing movements in the United States centered around identity politics. Yang opposes this ideology and believes it may replace traditional liberal values. Never mind "outsize influence", it has no influence at all — nobody follows "Successor Ideology", not even the person who made it up.
- rayiner 5y ago
  It’s like “trickle down economics.” It’s a phrase coined by its opponents to describe a real ideological trend. Obviously the people advancing that collection of ideas and policies don’t embrace the label and would describe their views differently. That doesn’t mean the label doesn’t describe a real thing. See also: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tell-me-what https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tel... (“Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand”) Like there are lots of people demanding to end the SAT because it’s racist against “Latinx.” What do we call those people?

BobbyJo 5y ago

I don't see it as anything other than a useful label in his writing personally. If you want to talk about something, you need a name for it, and I don't think there is one more apt yet bland one can ascribe to a group of people who take an arbitrary set of conventions to an agressive extreme.