4 ms·

Both of you seem to think he said "instead." Consider the clauses rephrased: "Maybe we should start by examining our own community, before ..." Why? I'd guess

by dbul 14y ago

Both of you seem to think he said "instead." Consider the clauses rephrased: "Maybe we should start by examining our own community, before ..." Why? I'd guess because the blog post refers to celebrity hackers bullying another hacker. The community -- more than just these few guys -- can't even behave civilly. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

dmix 14y ago
Compare the cause-and-effect of both the situations. One can send someone to jail for life and destroy their finances, reputation etc... the other can hurt someones feelings. Contending the latter should be addressed before (or even comparatively) to the former is what I take issue with.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Do you really think Paul Graham doesn't know the difference between someone being insulted on Twitter and someone being threatened with federal prison time? You don't think maybe it's you that are missing something, and not him? Because if my response to something he wrote depending on him not noticing the difference between prison and twitter, I would worry that I was missing something. No, wait, I wouldn't; I like giving him shit.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    He can still make a fallacious and ignorant comment while being aware of the difference.
    - achompas 14y ago
      The probability that he, or any other decent, civilized person, would make that comment is very, very low. Let's admit that parent, GP etc. are trying to pick on pg and move on.
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        He did make it. It is still there, you can read it. I am not sure what you are trying to convey.
    - chc 14y ago
      The actual objection here, the reason why pg's comment is "fallacious and ignorant", is a bit fuzzy. People have pointed out a difference between HN users and federal prosecutors, but not why that difference is important. I can only think of one possible line of reasoning, but it's unbelievably hollow. Are you sincerely arguing "It's OK for me to be an unsympathetic asshole because I don't send people to jail"?
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        >The actual objection here, the reason why pg's comment is "fallacious and ignorant", is a bit fuzzy Because he is suggesting that "someone said someone else's code was bad" is a more pressing and concerning issue than "the federal government threatened to destroy the life of a young man and drove him to suicide over a trivial non-offense". >Are you sincerely arguing "It's OK for me to be an unsympathetic asshole because I don't send people to jail"? I can't imagine how one could make an honest, good faith attempt at communications and come to that conclusion. It seems more like you are deliberately looking for a strawman. I am arguing that pg can in fact make a fallacious and ignorant statement, even if he is aware of the difference between two cases he is comparing.
        chc 14y ago
        > Because he is suggesting that "someone said someone else's code was bad" is a more pressing and concerning issue than "the federal government threatened to destroy the life of a young man and drove him to suicide over a trivial non-offense". As someone once said to me: I can't imagine how someone could make an honest, good-faith attempt at communications and come to that conclusion. What pg said, albeit more politely, is that calling out federal prosecutors for lacking sympathy when you don't exhibit any yourself is rank hypocrisy.
        papsosouid 14y ago
        No, that is not what he said. He very clearly, and completely explicitly stated that we should concern ourselves with this trivial non-issue before we concern ourselves with the serious issue. The only reason we could need to address one issue before we dare to consider another, is due to the overwhelming importance of the issue. Stop trying to pretend he said something other than what he really said. His words speak for themselves, you don't get to invent an absurd justification to pretend they mean something else. You can read the post yourself, it is still there. He has no way to know if the people calling out the federal prosecutors have sympathy or not. There is no hypocrisy in Bob saying the prosecutors did something wrong while Joe (who Bob has never met or heard of) is saying Sally wrote some bad code.
- rdsubhas 14y ago
  | One can send someone to jail for life and destroy their finances, reputation etc... the other can hurt someones feelings. And destroy their reputation. And, in some cases, push them to the edge.
- fatbird 14y ago
  If empathy were a limited resource that demanded to be spent only in descending order of the seriousness of the potential injury, then you might have a point.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Time is a limited resource. But fair point, as one could spend less time being unsympathetic towards others and instead spend it more valuably being empathetic towards legitimate causes.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    It is a limited resource, but you are right about that there is no clear order.
- hvs 14y ago
  Why is this a before/after situation? The people addressing one issue are a completely different group of people than the ones addressing the other. And what is keeping people from addressing both at the same time? And which one is closer to us that we can have a more direct effect on? This idea that we shouldn't try to address problems in the HN community because there are problems elsewhere in the world is ridiculous.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

by dbul 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

Compare the cause-and-effect of both the situations. One can send someone to jail for life and destroy their finances, reputation etc... the other can hurt someones feelings. Contending the latter should be addressed before (or even comparatively) to the former is what I take issue with.

tptacek 14y ago
Do you really think Paul Graham doesn't know the difference between someone being insulted on Twitter and someone being threatened with federal prison time? You don't think maybe it's you that are missing something, and not him? Because if my response to something he wrote depending on him not noticing the difference between prison and twitter, I would worry that I was missing something. No, wait, I wouldn't; I like giving him shit.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- papsosouid 14y ago
  He can still make a fallacious and ignorant comment while being aware of the difference.
  - achompas 14y ago
    The probability that he, or any other decent, civilized person, would make that comment is very, very low. Let's admit that parent, GP etc. are trying to pick on pg and move on.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      He did make it. It is still there, you can read it. I am not sure what you are trying to convey.
  - chc 14y ago
    The actual objection here, the reason why pg's comment is "fallacious and ignorant", is a bit fuzzy. People have pointed out a difference between HN users and federal prosecutors, but not why that difference is important. I can only think of one possible line of reasoning, but it's unbelievably hollow. Are you sincerely arguing "It's OK for me to be an unsympathetic asshole because I don't send people to jail"?
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >The actual objection here, the reason why pg's comment is "fallacious and ignorant", is a bit fuzzy Because he is suggesting that "someone said someone else's code was bad" is a more pressing and concerning issue than "the federal government threatened to destroy the life of a young man and drove him to suicide over a trivial non-offense". >Are you sincerely arguing "It's OK for me to be an unsympathetic asshole because I don't send people to jail"? I can't imagine how one could make an honest, good faith attempt at communications and come to that conclusion. It seems more like you are deliberately looking for a strawman. I am arguing that pg can in fact make a fallacious and ignorant statement, even if he is aware of the difference between two cases he is comparing.
      - chc 14y ago
        > Because he is suggesting that "someone said someone else's code was bad" is a more pressing and concerning issue than "the federal government threatened to destroy the life of a young man and drove him to suicide over a trivial non-offense". As someone once said to me: I can't imagine how someone could make an honest, good-faith attempt at communications and come to that conclusion. What pg said, albeit more politely, is that calling out federal prosecutors for lacking sympathy when you don't exhibit any yourself is rank hypocrisy.
        papsosouid 14y ago
        No, that is not what he said. He very clearly, and completely explicitly stated that we should concern ourselves with this trivial non-issue before we concern ourselves with the serious issue. The only reason we could need to address one issue before we dare to consider another, is due to the overwhelming importance of the issue. Stop trying to pretend he said something other than what he really said. His words speak for themselves, you don't get to invent an absurd justification to pretend they mean something else. You can read the post yourself, it is still there. He has no way to know if the people calling out the federal prosecutors have sympathy or not. There is no hypocrisy in Bob saying the prosecutors did something wrong while Joe (who Bob has never met or heard of) is saying Sally wrote some bad code.
rdsubhas 14y ago
| One can send someone to jail for life and destroy their finances, reputation etc... the other can hurt someones feelings. And destroy their reputation. And, in some cases, push them to the edge.
fatbird 14y ago
If empathy were a limited resource that demanded to be spent only in descending order of the seriousness of the potential injury, then you might have a point.
- dmix 14y ago
  Time is a limited resource. But fair point, as one could spend less time being unsympathetic towards others and instead spend it more valuably being empathetic towards legitimate causes.
- jeltz 14y ago
  It is a limited resource, but you are right about that there is no clear order.
hvs 14y ago
Why is this a before/after situation? The people addressing one issue are a completely different group of people than the ones addressing the other. And what is keeping people from addressing both at the same time? And which one is closer to us that we can have a more direct effect on? This idea that we shouldn't try to address problems in the HN community because there are problems elsewhere in the world is ridiculous.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]