3 ms·

Paul's done more good for people of all human subgroups - "protected" or unprotected - than any of the commentariat. But we live in a culture that gives power t

by crassus 13y ago

Paul's done more good for people of all human subgroups - "protected" or unprotected - than any of the commentariat. But we live in a culture that gives power to Social Justice Warriors who haven't done a damn thing. Why do we privilege the talkers over the doers? We're moving into a time where right ideology matters above all else. Something ugly is happening in America. If Paul Graham worked for someone else, he'd be fired by now[1]. That's sad, as everything he's said has been thoughtful and in good faith. None of it should be out of bounds for adult discussion. We live in a time when it's best to shut up if you know what's good for you. And that's sad. [1] http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/ http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badg...

tptacek 13y ago
I keep seeing comments like this and thinking about how easy it is to caricature any effort; for instance, people manage to do the same thing to Watsi, which should be an unimpeachable project. Are there do-nothing "Social Justice Warriors"? I'm sure there are. What's your point? By focusing on them to the exclusion of all else, what you're really demonstrating is that you're not interested in understanding the complaint. Why is ignorance supposed to be a compelling argument?
- crassus 13y ago
  Social Justice Warriors are shrinking the bounds of possible thought and tarnishing people's reputations. If you're not self-employed, they can get you fired. I'm an old-fashioned liberal: I believe that thoughtful, free discussion leads to improving our knowledge of the world. So first of all, SJWs are the enemy of free thought and they have turned their eyes towards tech. I hate to see the enemy wielding power or gaining in it. Secondly, I agree it is useful to introspect into tech culture and hiring practices to make sure we are not turning away good candidates. But we cannot judge the fairness of a hiring process solely by results because the hiring process doesn't control the larger culture that a person grows up in. If the cartoons kids watch at age 8 only have pimply male geeks in tech roles and as a result your startup has a skewed gender ratio 14 years later, that doesn't make the startup founders a witch, oops I mean sexist. Changing the culture is a monumental task, but the startup community is not shying away from it. They are investing in early childhood education and other initiatives to give all people the opportunity to code. But the fruits of these projects will be long-term. In the meantime, I want people to be able to discuss the issue openly and honestly without being attacked/fired, because I believe that makes us most effective and I believe that is what is right. The SJWs looking to burn witches aren't adding anything and they can go to hell.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Your comment would have been just as effective without its first and last graf; had you refrained from trying to caricature everyone who feels like gender imbalance is a problem, I would merely disagree with most of it. It is simply not true that cartoon representations of computer programmers are a necessary component of an effective startup hacker. Changing the culture is indeed a monumental task, but the startup community seems to be embracing the current culture and back-rationalizing its attributes. You see this when you see people describe how getting started at age 13 is somehow important to building CRUD websites.
    - crassus 13y ago
      Just curious - do you think that outlets like Valleywag are a positive or negative for our industry? If something is a positive for everybody who believes the "right" way and negative for everybody else, I tend to believe that's a net negative because it makes us dumber in the aggregate.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Negative.
gress 13y ago
I don't know how you justify your statement about the 'good' Paul Graham has done. If it's just about job and wealth creation then so have the Koch brothers. However, I agree to an extent with everything after that.
- Crito 13y ago
  The objection to the Koch brothers might be something along the line of pointing out the harm they have done to impoverished people (or even pointing out the number of impoverished people that were forced into poverty as a result of the Koch brothers). Both the Koch brothers and PG have enabled a few people to become rather rich. Has PG/YC done any of the things that we dislike the Koch brothers for? Have they done things like lobby against climate change legislation?
  - gress 13y ago
    You aren't disputing the idea that the Koch brothers have done as much good as PG. Just that there are reasons to dislike them.

by crassus 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I keep seeing comments like this and thinking about how easy it is to caricature any effort; for instance, people manage to do the same thing to Watsi, which should be an unimpeachable project. Are there do-nothing "Social Justice Warriors"? I'm sure there are. What's your point? By focusing on them to the exclusion of all else, what you're really demonstrating is that you're not interested in understanding the complaint. Why is ignorance supposed to be a compelling argument?

crassus 13y ago
Social Justice Warriors are shrinking the bounds of possible thought and tarnishing people's reputations. If you're not self-employed, they can get you fired. I'm an old-fashioned liberal: I believe that thoughtful, free discussion leads to improving our knowledge of the world. So first of all, SJWs are the enemy of free thought and they have turned their eyes towards tech. I hate to see the enemy wielding power or gaining in it. Secondly, I agree it is useful to introspect into tech culture and hiring practices to make sure we are not turning away good candidates. But we cannot judge the fairness of a hiring process solely by results because the hiring process doesn't control the larger culture that a person grows up in. If the cartoons kids watch at age 8 only have pimply male geeks in tech roles and as a result your startup has a skewed gender ratio 14 years later, that doesn't make the startup founders a witch, oops I mean sexist. Changing the culture is a monumental task, but the startup community is not shying away from it. They are investing in early childhood education and other initiatives to give all people the opportunity to code. But the fruits of these projects will be long-term. In the meantime, I want people to be able to discuss the issue openly and honestly without being attacked/fired, because I believe that makes us most effective and I believe that is what is right. The SJWs looking to burn witches aren't adding anything and they can go to hell.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Your comment would have been just as effective without its first and last graf; had you refrained from trying to caricature everyone who feels like gender imbalance is a problem, I would merely disagree with most of it. It is simply not true that cartoon representations of computer programmers are a necessary component of an effective startup hacker. Changing the culture is indeed a monumental task, but the startup community seems to be embracing the current culture and back-rationalizing its attributes. You see this when you see people describe how getting started at age 13 is somehow important to building CRUD websites.
  - crassus 13y ago
    Just curious - do you think that outlets like Valleywag are a positive or negative for our industry? If something is a positive for everybody who believes the "right" way and negative for everybody else, I tend to believe that's a net negative because it makes us dumber in the aggregate.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Negative.

gress 13y ago

I don't know how you justify your statement about the 'good' Paul Graham has done. If it's just about job and wealth creation then so have the Koch brothers. However, I agree to an extent with everything after that.

Crito 13y ago
The objection to the Koch brothers might be something along the line of pointing out the harm they have done to impoverished people (or even pointing out the number of impoverished people that were forced into poverty as a result of the Koch brothers). Both the Koch brothers and PG have enabled a few people to become rather rich. Has PG/YC done any of the things that we dislike the Koch brothers for? Have they done things like lobby against climate change legislation?
- gress 13y ago
  You aren't disputing the idea that the Koch brothers have done as much good as PG. Just that there are reasons to dislike them.