7 ms·

I read the linked comment, and some of your other comments on the topic on this thread. You took this into meta meta (yea, 2x) territory. Not the actual issues,

I read the linked comment, and some of your other comments on the topic on this thread. You took this into meta meta (yea, 2x) territory. Not the actual issues, not the person who wrote the linked essay (pg), but the people discussing the person discussing the issues. Why would you do that? And furthermore, how can you possibly feel you survive your own critique of "pseudo-intellectuals"? This is you [0] spouting amateur social science: > Umm... how about in a capitalist society money is the vehicle of positive freedom... to increase ones ability to do something on has to have more money. Therefore under capitalism there is always a fundamental tie between money and power. Which, by the way, I have no problem with. A well-regarded logical fallacy is "appeal to authority", the contrapositive of which implies that we should judge arguments on their merit regardless of where they come from. So if people find some writing illuminating, attack the logic, not the writer, and not the readers. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6988150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6988150

mjburgess 13y ago
It's "amateur social science" in the sense that it's an "off-hand comment". I could write a 5k word essay on this very small point and make it respectable, I didnt because HN comment boxes are not vehicles of long essays. If pg's observations were confined to small discussion threads on HN i wouldnt have much issue. But he presented the article I mentioned at Defcon. And his "Essays" section are presented as essays, not "off-hand comments". > Why would you do that? I'm responding to the questions raised in the most convenient way. I'm not going to give a serious critique of the many essays which require it to make a small point about his blase approach to serious academic topics. Far too much effort to spend on a crowd whose faith in pg's intellectual status is based on his money-making ability.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's "amateur social science" in the sense that it's an "off-hand comment". I could write a 5k word essay on this very small point and make it respectable Pics or it didn't happen. >I didnt because HN comment boxes are not vehicles of long essays. (...) Far too much effort to spend on a crowd whose faith in pg's intellectual status is based on his money-making ability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking
  - mjburgess 13y ago
    It isnt back tracking when at the time you made the comment you said it was an off-hand comment. It isnt "backtracking" to criticize a person for one thing while you are doing another. Jon Stewart criticizes news programs whilst his program isnt a very good news program. Fortunately he's in the comedy business. Equally, my off-hand comment isnt a very good essay but fortunately I didnt post it to an Essays section of a website and then go and read it to a conference audience.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It isnt back tracking when at the time you made the comment you said it was an off-hand comment. So, it isn't backtracking if you pre-emptively declare that you are backtracking. Right. >It isnt "backtracking" to criticize a person for one thing while you are doing another. Jon Stewart criticizes news programs whilst his program isnt a very good news program. Fortunately he's in the comedy business. Unfortunately the similarity doesn't hold, because Jon Stewart doesn't also say "I can do a much better news program than them", whereas you did said that you could write a respectable "5k word essay on this very small point" (and then didn't). >Equally, my off-hand comment isnt a very good essay but fortunately I didnt post it to an Essays section of a website and then go and read it to a conference audience As if the section of website where something is published matters one iota. It's not like having an essays section necessitates that you only put George Steiner quality material in it. Heck, Zed Shaw has an essays section on his website. Also, you keep mentioning this conference audience a lot -- Sounds like sour grapes to me. As if Defcon is some elite philosophical conference, and Paul Graham failed to keep to the level of previous speakers, like Plato or Heidegger.
    - mjburgess 13y ago
      I'm reacting to how he is treated and how he writes (playing up to this image of himself as a Heidegger). If we attribute his writing to a small time blogger who's writing on a few topics for fun then all of my critique looks insanely harsh. You have to put what im saying in the context of how his work is read (as some kind of obviously briliant religious text).
- tvladeck 13y ago
  > I'm responding to the questions raised in the most convenient way. Absolutely not the case; here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6987798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6987798, the relevant comment that sparked this discussion), you are simply taking the conversation into new territory and insulting people. > But jesus, >> pg's response is actually priceless: it is like a soft-spoken witness upending a bullying lawyer who had just viciously attacked him, leaving the attacker reeling for all to see. >What's with the almost cult-like reverence for this largely pseudo-intellectual entrepreneur?
- chris_wot 13y ago
  I come to HN for the interesting links and discussion, not for pg. You really aren't prosecuting your case very well. In all your comments, I can't see even one solid example supporting your arguments. All your arguments are ad hominem, I'm less than impressed!

mjburgess 13y ago

It's "amateur social science" in the sense that it's an "off-hand comment". I could write a 5k word essay on this very small point and make it respectable, I didnt because HN comment boxes are not vehicles of long essays. If pg's observations were confined to small discussion threads on HN i wouldnt have much issue. But he presented the article I mentioned at Defcon. And his "Essays" section are presented as essays, not "off-hand comments". > Why would you do that? I'm responding to the questions raised in the most convenient way. I'm not going to give a serious critique of the many essays which require it to make a small point about his blase approach to serious academic topics. Far too much effort to spend on a crowd whose faith in pg's intellectual status is based on his money-making ability.

coldtea 13y ago
>It's "amateur social science" in the sense that it's an "off-hand comment". I could write a 5k word essay on this very small point and make it respectable Pics or it didn't happen. >I didnt because HN comment boxes are not vehicles of long essays. (...) Far too much effort to spend on a crowd whose faith in pg's intellectual status is based on his money-making ability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking
- mjburgess 13y ago
  It isnt back tracking when at the time you made the comment you said it was an off-hand comment. It isnt "backtracking" to criticize a person for one thing while you are doing another. Jon Stewart criticizes news programs whilst his program isnt a very good news program. Fortunately he's in the comedy business. Equally, my off-hand comment isnt a very good essay but fortunately I didnt post it to an Essays section of a website and then go and read it to a conference audience.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It isnt back tracking when at the time you made the comment you said it was an off-hand comment. So, it isn't backtracking if you pre-emptively declare that you are backtracking. Right. >It isnt "backtracking" to criticize a person for one thing while you are doing another. Jon Stewart criticizes news programs whilst his program isnt a very good news program. Fortunately he's in the comedy business. Unfortunately the similarity doesn't hold, because Jon Stewart doesn't also say "I can do a much better news program than them", whereas you did said that you could write a respectable "5k word essay on this very small point" (and then didn't). >Equally, my off-hand comment isnt a very good essay but fortunately I didnt post it to an Essays section of a website and then go and read it to a conference audience As if the section of website where something is published matters one iota. It's not like having an essays section necessitates that you only put George Steiner quality material in it. Heck, Zed Shaw has an essays section on his website. Also, you keep mentioning this conference audience a lot -- Sounds like sour grapes to me. As if Defcon is some elite philosophical conference, and Paul Graham failed to keep to the level of previous speakers, like Plato or Heidegger.
  - mjburgess 13y ago
    I'm reacting to how he is treated and how he writes (playing up to this image of himself as a Heidegger). If we attribute his writing to a small time blogger who's writing on a few topics for fun then all of my critique looks insanely harsh. You have to put what im saying in the context of how his work is read (as some kind of obviously briliant religious text).
tvladeck 13y ago
> I'm responding to the questions raised in the most convenient way. Absolutely not the case; here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6987798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6987798, the relevant comment that sparked this discussion), you are simply taking the conversation into new territory and insulting people. > But jesus, >> pg's response is actually priceless: it is like a soft-spoken witness upending a bullying lawyer who had just viciously attacked him, leaving the attacker reeling for all to see. >What's with the almost cult-like reverence for this largely pseudo-intellectual entrepreneur?
chris_wot 13y ago
I come to HN for the interesting links and discussion, not for pg. You really aren't prosecuting your case very well. In all your comments, I can't see even one solid example supporting your arguments. All your arguments are ad hominem, I'm less than impressed!