8 ms·

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the p

by nirvana 15y ago

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one way, other threads attract the other crowd and the comments go the other way. I really wish Hacker News was about startups, and if there was any debate, we were all capitalists debating it. I'm tired of the seemingly endless stream of leftist propaganda that gets promoted to the front page (e.g.: anything by Krugman, for example.) I'd hate this just as much if it were all rightest propaganda. IF it was balanced, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be irritating. When almost all the discussions are of one mindset, and posting something outside that mindset gets you down voted to oblivion, I feel like intellectual discussion is much more difficult. This isn't always the case here, obviously, but sometimes it is. I don't really care for Amazon, but at least when Amazon is on the front page its because they did something relevant to the site. I can just ignore those threads. Amazon' announcing that they've got a new finger service in AWS doesn't add anything for me, but it doesn't detract like the political topics do. Cloudant, a company that takes CouchDB and turns it into a dynamo style ring, has produced something significant in their platform. We should be talking about this. Cloudant provides a very useful tool that should be very highly relevant to people who are doing startups. The thing is, I suspect a major population of HN commenters aren't really doing startups or planning to.

kongqiu 15y ago
Monsanto is an extreme case, and therefore inspires a lot of passion. I'd say the vast majority of people on HN are pro-capitalism and pro-innovation, but have disparate views on business ethics and the efficacy of various regulations. In the eyes of many, Monsanto crosses the line between "good honest competition" and "dangerous and malevolent would-be monopolist." Also: Way to paint people you disagree with on this issue as "very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes..."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
thomasgerbe 15y ago
What does not liking a company for it's past transgressions have anything to do with being anti-capitalist/anti-innovation/pro-taxes?
klochner 15y ago
Cloudant posted the article which is almost exclusively about the Monsanto partnership. The ensuing debate logically should be about the partnership rather than the technology. Flag the article if you don't think it's relevant.
mun2mun 15y ago
Rather offtopic can you comment on the post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104637
dasil003 15y ago
> I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. You're just creating two stereotypes and shoving people in them without having any clue about the actual distribution. People on HN are thinkers. Sure there are clusters of opinion, but these aren't disjoint sets across the spectrum. We have a variety of nuanced opinion because we all think a lot. Case in point: me. I guess you could say I lean a bit liberal, but fiscally I'm conservative because I think on balance the government doesn't do a good job spending money. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe that regulation is necessary (despite its blunt nature) to protect the public good. The Monsanto issue an important one. They are profiting at the expense of the quality of the world food supply, and they use a lot of strong-arm methods to maintain their profits. Reasonable people can disagree about various corporations' practices, but to pigeon-hole people who complain about Monsanto rather than going and educating yourself about what they do does yourself and the whole world a disservice. The quality of the food supply is a life or death issue for everyone.
- nirvana 15y ago
  "rather than going and educating yourself about what they do" Your assumption that I'm not educated about the issue is in error.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    Then you shouldn't assume that somebody who is vitriolic about the issue is automatically a liberal wacko.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - temphn 15y ago
      If they are vitriolic about the issue then they are likely to be a wacko. Whether liberal or otherwise is TBD. After all, only a wacko would say "f* Cloudant" to someone's face who they just met or heard about.
pg 15y ago
I don't think there are two separate crowds. I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Politics happens to be a big source of shallow controversies. But I don't think most people who upvote comments saying "Fuck Monsanto" do it because they have a deep interest in politics, any more than most people who rail against "Obamacare" do it because they have a deep interest in politics. They do it because they're dumb. It's the shape of this sort of idea that excites them, not its content.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  > I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Or: I disagree with you, therefore you are dumb. Outstanding. I up-voted the parent comment. I have been here for years. I consider myself to be a free market supporting, fiscally conservative and independent thinker. I have major issues with the methods Monsanto uses to conduct itself in the marketplace. In everything from the products they produce, their influence of the legal and regulatory systems, their seeming inability to factor in a basic responsibility to those that consume their products and even the way they distribute the surpluses in their pension funds (i.e. they steal them, when allowed). I believe they act this way mainly due to a void of ethical behaviour at their highest levels, and because of this, I will look at them, and individuals that fail to recognize these actions as being a problem with a certain level of suspicion. If you think I am not as smart as you because of this so be it.
  - ebaysucks 15y ago
    Agreed. Those who think that Monsanto represents "apolitical business" are not my definition of smart. Than again, apparantly I'm one of the dumb ones.
  - csallen 15y ago
    You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody said that taking a particular side of a debate makes you dumb. This isn't about what side you take, it's about how you choose to debate. HN used to be a place that cared deeply about conversing in a civil, responsible, and educational manner. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed in the parent comment, the fact is that it doesn't meet those standards. Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?), the comment does little to substantiate its opinions, or to educate those who aren't aware of the issue. In other words, it's a populist comment expressly made to pander to those who are already in agreement. Upvoting said comment means either (a) you haven't even considered the importance of having a quality discussion, (b) you've considered it but in this case you don't care, or (c) you actually think it's a high quality comment. The fact that the comment is sitting pretty at the top of the page means that people have, en masse, fallen into one of these categories. Like it or not, A and C are simply dumber than the HN of old, and B is more confrontational.
run4yourlives 15y ago
Do you realize that your long winded argument is a giant argumentum ad hominem fallacy?

by nirvana 15y ago

kongqiu 15y ago

Monsanto is an extreme case, and therefore inspires a lot of passion. I'd say the vast majority of people on HN are pro-capitalism and pro-innovation, but have disparate views on business ethics and the efficacy of various regulations. In the eyes of many, Monsanto crosses the line between "good honest competition" and "dangerous and malevolent would-be monopolist." Also: Way to paint people you disagree with on this issue as "very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes..."

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

thomasgerbe 15y ago

What does not liking a company for it's past transgressions have anything to do with being anti-capitalist/anti-innovation/pro-taxes?

klochner 15y ago

Cloudant posted the article which is almost exclusively about the Monsanto partnership. The ensuing debate logically should be about the partnership rather than the technology. Flag the article if you don't think it's relevant.

mun2mun 15y ago

Rather offtopic can you comment on the post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104637

dasil003 15y ago

> I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. You're just creating two stereotypes and shoving people in them without having any clue about the actual distribution. People on HN are thinkers. Sure there are clusters of opinion, but these aren't disjoint sets across the spectrum. We have a variety of nuanced opinion because we all think a lot. Case in point: me. I guess you could say I lean a bit liberal, but fiscally I'm conservative because I think on balance the government doesn't do a good job spending money. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe that regulation is necessary (despite its blunt nature) to protect the public good. The Monsanto issue an important one. They are profiting at the expense of the quality of the world food supply, and they use a lot of strong-arm methods to maintain their profits. Reasonable people can disagree about various corporations' practices, but to pigeon-hole people who complain about Monsanto rather than going and educating yourself about what they do does yourself and the whole world a disservice. The quality of the food supply is a life or death issue for everyone.

nirvana 15y ago
"rather than going and educating yourself about what they do" Your assumption that I'm not educated about the issue is in error.
- dasil003 15y ago
  Then you shouldn't assume that somebody who is vitriolic about the issue is automatically a liberal wacko.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - temphn 15y ago
    If they are vitriolic about the issue then they are likely to be a wacko. Whether liberal or otherwise is TBD. After all, only a wacko would say "f* Cloudant" to someone's face who they just met or heard about.

pg 15y ago

I don't think there are two separate crowds. I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Politics happens to be a big source of shallow controversies. But I don't think most people who upvote comments saying "Fuck Monsanto" do it because they have a deep interest in politics, any more than most people who rail against "Obamacare" do it because they have a deep interest in politics. They do it because they're dumb. It's the shape of this sort of idea that excites them, not its content.

run4yourlives 15y ago
> I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Or: I disagree with you, therefore you are dumb. Outstanding. I up-voted the parent comment. I have been here for years. I consider myself to be a free market supporting, fiscally conservative and independent thinker. I have major issues with the methods Monsanto uses to conduct itself in the marketplace. In everything from the products they produce, their influence of the legal and regulatory systems, their seeming inability to factor in a basic responsibility to those that consume their products and even the way they distribute the surpluses in their pension funds (i.e. they steal them, when allowed). I believe they act this way mainly due to a void of ethical behaviour at their highest levels, and because of this, I will look at them, and individuals that fail to recognize these actions as being a problem with a certain level of suspicion. If you think I am not as smart as you because of this so be it.
- ebaysucks 15y ago
  Agreed. Those who think that Monsanto represents "apolitical business" are not my definition of smart. Than again, apparantly I'm one of the dumb ones.
- csallen 15y ago
  You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody said that taking a particular side of a debate makes you dumb. This isn't about what side you take, it's about how you choose to debate. HN used to be a place that cared deeply about conversing in a civil, responsible, and educational manner. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed in the parent comment, the fact is that it doesn't meet those standards. Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?), the comment does little to substantiate its opinions, or to educate those who aren't aware of the issue. In other words, it's a populist comment expressly made to pander to those who are already in agreement. Upvoting said comment means either (a) you haven't even considered the importance of having a quality discussion, (b) you've considered it but in this case you don't care, or (c) you actually think it's a high quality comment. The fact that the comment is sitting pretty at the top of the page means that people have, en masse, fallen into one of these categories. Like it or not, A and C are simply dumber than the HN of old, and B is more confrontational.

run4yourlives 15y ago

Do you realize that your long winded argument is a giant argumentum ad hominem fallacy?