6 ms·

On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

25 points by janogonzalez 13y ago

bobosha 13y ago
Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech. As a techie, I see think there's significant truth to PG's opinions. Surely it takes two to tango, the tech industry is keen to hire and encourage women entrepreneurs, but it's not like women are being turned away at the gates, by sexist VCs.
- borski 13y ago
  I'm genuinely afraid of stating opinions about women in tech, almost no matter what they are. Being a white male, I have a lot of fear of being completely ripped apart in TechCrunch or ValleyWag for stating my opinions or making suggestions, because I'm never sure if I'm totally PC or not. It sucks, because I want to help somehow, but I don't want to be misunderstood and have my name be raked through the coals either.
  - smadge 13y ago
    There is a pretty easy solution to your problem: get informed. Your opinion is worthless if you don't know what you are talking about enough to not infuriate people who do.
    - borski 13y ago
      That's incredibly myopic. You have no idea how informed I am or am not. My point is not that I'm uninformed; my point is that often anything I say gets misconstrued into something I didn't mean, and then torn apart. So I avoid it, because that scares me. I'd like to discuss it, without judgment, and come to a way I can help. The process of getting there is hard when it's so easy to jump the gun and assume that I, as a white male, am definitionally likely to be discriminatory. That occurs a lot.
  - 1337biz 13y ago
    Same here. It is pretty much pointless to discuss this issue. Any opinion that doesn't align with a hyper PC standard is getting framed as "controversial". Votes/Flags are the silent voices of those who can't afford to get drawn into a battle with potentially severe consequences about an issue which they have personally relatively little to gain from.
- DoctorZeus 13y ago
  And how does dismissing critics as "pc lynchmobs" advance the conversation? Some people have oversimplified Paul Graham's perspective; doing the same to other people's perspectives will get no one anywhere.
  - skylan_q 13y ago
    The PC lynchmobs are the ones stopping the conversation. Instead of saying "prove yourself" they shout "bigot!" The OP itself says that PG is saying "Crazy" things. How are they crazy? He doesn't point out how this is the case. Instead, he's made a final judgment and anyone that disagrees must also be crazy. There is no reasoning with those who shun reason and react to disagreement with accusations of craziness and bigotry.
- hobs 13y ago
  DO you really think that there isnt a conversation about the absence of women in tech? Really? At least every other day I see a front page article highlighting this fact, people getting upset because some conference's either do or do not contain women (some version of either insinuation of "we need women because we dont have them" or "we have women but they might not be as qualified and that makes some dudes mad") People trying to get women into tech with whatever method possible etc. Maybe it isnt a pervasive piece of EVERY conversation, but you can literally find hundreds of articles on this site about that very topic. Hey look, right now! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    Yup; and they're all flagged off the front page in no time. My favourite one is the article about one of the problems with women in tech being that Silicon Valley believes it's more meritocratic than it is, on which PG comments that it's really that meritocratic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606) I'm still curious if he spotted my last minute edit just as it was dropping off the front page while an interesting discussion was emerging.
- smadge 13y ago
  But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says that there is an intrinsic reason women can not be in technology, it is propagating that norm and preventing women from entering the industry.
  - csallen 13y ago
    What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.
    - smadge 13y ago
      He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.
      - csallen 13y ago
        > He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech. > But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for their lack of interest? The only thing he said was that the real way to solve this problem would be to get girls interested in hacking at a younger age, but that that's a difficult task. Does anyone actually disagree with that? > ...but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg. YC invested in me, and I'm black. There were girls in my batch, too. Rather than actually listen to the points being made, reflect on the nuances, and engage in conversation honestly, you'd rather feign outrage over falsified "facts" and make-believe quotes. This is exactly why discussions like this are always of such low quality.
tomasien 13y ago
I think Paul also gets a pass because we're all basically 100% sure he means well. But that should be the opposite of what we do - I'm sure he is the kind of person who is always willing to revealuate his thoughts if presented with a good reason to.
mtrimpe 13y ago
One of the things that's always bothered me about HN is how quickly articles about women in tech get flagged off the front page. It took me a while to realize that this is actually a feature and not a bug as HN exists as a promotional tool for YCombinator. Having much needed discussions around sensitive topics might be good for the community as a whole; but is much too risky a proposition for YCombinator to take on.
- jgh 13y ago
  ...and it's gone.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ericd 13y ago
  It doesn't fall off because of some skittishness on YC's part about taking a stance on these things or w/e. It falls off because HN is designed to throw off anything that is more inflammatory than interesting to read. I believe that this is for the sake of community preservation. This is going to fall off because it's going to be a comment section full of people misunderstanding things and shouting at each other, not because of any admin flag.
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    No; it's going to fall off the front page because 10% of readers were irked by the story. That is taking a stance on how to approach discussions on sensitive topics and is exactly what I was talking about. What would happen if that weren't the case is pure speculation; because for all we know a common consensus would quickly emerge if these discussions would be allowed to run their course.
    - ericd 13y ago
      No, it's a feature of the software designed to avoid flame wars on the front page. And from my time on the internet, I can tell you that maybe everyone who is still around at the end of the discussion will be on the same page, but it's not going to be nearly everyone that started, and along the way, a lot of people will have developed negative feelings towards each other.
jgh 13y ago
I feel like this thread isn't going to be as spectacular as it otherwise would, being that it's been posted on the weekend during the holidays.
skylan_q 13y ago
Many things are manufactured to create outrage. I've no doubt the duck dynasty guy is one of these cases. He’s been saying crazy shit like this on the regular for a while now... Crazy? Maybe he's just gleaming from observation and experience or hunches? Is that crazy?
omonra 13y ago
OP might consider the fact that truth in the real world does not conform to his liberal ideals. That perhaps not everybody who holds an opinion different from his own is a homophobe, racist or misogynist.
Uchikoma 13y ago
I don't want to imply Catherine Bracy is right or wrong. From looking at it, PG describes how things are (YC applications, startup CEOs) and Catherine describes how things should be. I myself get often argued with because people confuse when I describe things a I see them with I tell people how they should be.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
Subtext of the article is... white people are the gatekeepers to wealth, Paul Graham is racist and sexist, and white men pick and choose the new wealth class. And we should be angry at people like Paul Graham instead of Phil Robertson for judging people based on race or gender or sexual identity.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tzs 13y ago
> He has said in the past that people with “strong” accents can’t be good CEOs No, he said that people whose accents make it hard for others to understand them will likely have a hard time.
aeorgnoieang 13y ago
http://paulgraham.com/wids.html http://paulgraham.com/wids.html

25 points by janogonzalez 13y ago

Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech. As a techie, I see think there's significant truth to PG's opinions. Surely it takes two to tango, the tech industry is keen to hire and encourage women entrepreneurs, but it's not like women are being turned away at the gates, by sexist VCs.

borski 13y ago
I'm genuinely afraid of stating opinions about women in tech, almost no matter what they are. Being a white male, I have a lot of fear of being completely ripped apart in TechCrunch or ValleyWag for stating my opinions or making suggestions, because I'm never sure if I'm totally PC or not. It sucks, because I want to help somehow, but I don't want to be misunderstood and have my name be raked through the coals either.
- smadge 13y ago
  There is a pretty easy solution to your problem: get informed. Your opinion is worthless if you don't know what you are talking about enough to not infuriate people who do.
  - borski 13y ago
    That's incredibly myopic. You have no idea how informed I am or am not. My point is not that I'm uninformed; my point is that often anything I say gets misconstrued into something I didn't mean, and then torn apart. So I avoid it, because that scares me. I'd like to discuss it, without judgment, and come to a way I can help. The process of getting there is hard when it's so easy to jump the gun and assume that I, as a white male, am definitionally likely to be discriminatory. That occurs a lot.
- 1337biz 13y ago
  Same here. It is pretty much pointless to discuss this issue. Any opinion that doesn't align with a hyper PC standard is getting framed as "controversial". Votes/Flags are the silent voices of those who can't afford to get drawn into a battle with potentially severe consequences about an issue which they have personally relatively little to gain from.
DoctorZeus 13y ago
And how does dismissing critics as "pc lynchmobs" advance the conversation? Some people have oversimplified Paul Graham's perspective; doing the same to other people's perspectives will get no one anywhere.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  The PC lynchmobs are the ones stopping the conversation. Instead of saying "prove yourself" they shout "bigot!" The OP itself says that PG is saying "Crazy" things. How are they crazy? He doesn't point out how this is the case. Instead, he's made a final judgment and anyone that disagrees must also be crazy. There is no reasoning with those who shun reason and react to disagreement with accusations of craziness and bigotry.
hobs 13y ago
DO you really think that there isnt a conversation about the absence of women in tech? Really? At least every other day I see a front page article highlighting this fact, people getting upset because some conference's either do or do not contain women (some version of either insinuation of "we need women because we dont have them" or "we have women but they might not be as qualified and that makes some dudes mad") People trying to get women into tech with whatever method possible etc. Maybe it isnt a pervasive piece of EVERY conversation, but you can literally find hundreds of articles on this site about that very topic. Hey look, right now! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  Yup; and they're all flagged off the front page in no time. My favourite one is the article about one of the problems with women in tech being that Silicon Valley believes it's more meritocratic than it is, on which PG comments that it's really that meritocratic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606) I'm still curious if he spotted my last minute edit just as it was dropping off the front page while an interesting discussion was emerging.
smadge 13y ago
But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says that there is an intrinsic reason women can not be in technology, it is propagating that norm and preventing women from entering the industry.
- csallen 13y ago
  What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.
  - smadge 13y ago
    He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.
    - csallen 13y ago
      > He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech. > But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for their lack of interest? The only thing he said was that the real way to solve this problem would be to get girls interested in hacking at a younger age, but that that's a difficult task. Does anyone actually disagree with that? > ...but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg. YC invested in me, and I'm black. There were girls in my batch, too. Rather than actually listen to the points being made, reflect on the nuances, and engage in conversation honestly, you'd rather feign outrage over falsified "facts" and make-believe quotes. This is exactly why discussions like this are always of such low quality.

tomasien 13y ago

I think Paul also gets a pass because we're all basically 100% sure he means well. But that should be the opposite of what we do - I'm sure he is the kind of person who is always willing to revealuate his thoughts if presented with a good reason to.

mtrimpe 13y ago

One of the things that's always bothered me about HN is how quickly articles about women in tech get flagged off the front page. It took me a while to realize that this is actually a feature and not a bug as HN exists as a promotional tool for YCombinator. Having much needed discussions around sensitive topics might be good for the community as a whole; but is much too risky a proposition for YCombinator to take on.

jgh 13y ago
...and it's gone.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ericd 13y ago
It doesn't fall off because of some skittishness on YC's part about taking a stance on these things or w/e. It falls off because HN is designed to throw off anything that is more inflammatory than interesting to read. I believe that this is for the sake of community preservation. This is going to fall off because it's going to be a comment section full of people misunderstanding things and shouting at each other, not because of any admin flag.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  No; it's going to fall off the front page because 10% of readers were irked by the story. That is taking a stance on how to approach discussions on sensitive topics and is exactly what I was talking about. What would happen if that weren't the case is pure speculation; because for all we know a common consensus would quickly emerge if these discussions would be allowed to run their course.
  - ericd 13y ago
    No, it's a feature of the software designed to avoid flame wars on the front page. And from my time on the internet, I can tell you that maybe everyone who is still around at the end of the discussion will be on the same page, but it's not going to be nearly everyone that started, and along the way, a lot of people will have developed negative feelings towards each other.

jgh 13y ago

I feel like this thread isn't going to be as spectacular as it otherwise would, being that it's been posted on the weekend during the holidays.

skylan_q 13y ago

Many things are manufactured to create outrage. I've no doubt the duck dynasty guy is one of these cases. He’s been saying crazy shit like this on the regular for a while now... Crazy? Maybe he's just gleaming from observation and experience or hunches? Is that crazy?

omonra 13y ago

OP might consider the fact that truth in the real world does not conform to his liberal ideals. That perhaps not everybody who holds an opinion different from his own is a homophobe, racist or misogynist.

Uchikoma 13y ago

I don't want to imply Catherine Bracy is right or wrong. From looking at it, PG describes how things are (YC applications, startup CEOs) and Catherine describes how things should be. I myself get often argued with because people confuse when I describe things a I see them with I tell people how they should be.

dreamdu5t 13y ago

Subtext of the article is... white people are the gatekeepers to wealth, Paul Graham is racist and sexist, and white men pick and choose the new wealth class. And we should be angry at people like Paul Graham instead of Phil Robertson for judging people based on race or gender or sexual identity.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tzs 13y ago

> He has said in the past that people with “strong” accents can’t be good CEOs No, he said that people whose accents make it hard for others to understand them will likely have a hard time.

aeorgnoieang 13y ago

http://paulgraham.com/wids.html http://paulgraham.com/wids.html