Comment by blactuary
5 days ago
He's a smart enough person that even asking that question makes me think the whole piece is written in bad faith. Yes, language evolves and has specific context and nuance.
5 days ago
He's a smart enough person that even asking that question makes me think the whole piece is written in bad faith. Yes, language evolves and has specific context and nuance.
its not that complicated, he just doesn't think that hard about things when they support his conclusion. He's silently edited blog posts in the past to fix glaring holes that a 7th grader could catch after commenters on HN pointed them out.
Interesting point to consider. I recently questioned the validity of a statement made by a newsletter publisher related to a repeatedly-debunked conspiracy theory that he used to attempt to bolster his point. It reeked of irony.
I politely asked for a fact-check on it in the comments section, as I otherwise enjoyed and agreed with the substance of the post. He both removed the claim in question and my comment.
I was unsure of how to feel about this. Those who had already read the post online or still had the original in their inbox were left with the misinformation from what they may consider a trusted source.
I believed it would have been better to edit out the false information, leave my comment, and reply with clarification on the editing and why.
Likewise, this practice of dynamically-edited online content is actually relevant to the topic of PG's post and the role it plays in replacing the traditional constraints on printed media.
While there is room for quibbling about whether or not silently removing false information from a piece you've written is dishonest, it most certainly is not honest.
In addition to those who received an older version with the misinformation, a critical aspect of determining what is true is determining who to trust, since there is far too much to be known for any one person to determine it themselves. Silently editing your own writing to respond to good criticism of it leaves future readers less informed about your own trustworthiness.
1 reply →
Got some examples of articles that were edited? Should then be possible to check on iA.
https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html
There are numerous changes over the first two days, Exercise to the reader to find which HN comments inspired them.
To note: I really have no problem with him updating his piece to reflect accurate criticism, I do find issue with doing it silently, and with not reflecting on how it should influence his thoroughness in the future.
Indeed all I can think of now is Stewart Lee's bit about "political correctness gone mad"
(some strong language and racist words used so maybe not safe for work or around kids)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_JCBmY9NGM
I was thinking about Stewart Lee as I attempted to read the article. It resonated especially strongly as I got to the part about how this awful "political correctness" is the reason that women are now able to report sexual harassment on campus. I wasn't able to make it much further. Hats off to those brave adventurers who made it through the whole thing.
The point he is making is that it's ultimately absurd to make moral judgements based on word usage.
A person who actively discriminates in hiring against black people but doesn't call anyone a slur is seen as more virtuous as someone who doesn't discriminate, yet uses the slur in jest. The first behavior is seen as more excusable than the second, although an actual reasonable moral judgement makes it evident it's not.
> A person who actively discriminates in hiring against black people but doesn't call anyone a slur is seen as more virtuous as someone who doesn't discriminate, yet uses the slur in jest. The first behavior is seen as more excusable than the second, although an actual reasonable moral judgement makes it evident it's not.
What in the world are you talking about?
Imagine company A and B.
A report comes out, turns out that a certain HR person in company A hasn't hired a single black applicant since they got there.
At the same time, a video comes out showing the equivalent person in company B saying the n word in passing.
In this situation, it's maybe considered that the person in A might be racist, while it's completely assumed the person in B is.
4 replies →
None of that is true, sorry
Being "smart" isn't a binary, and can't describe someone in any all-encompassing ways. Someone can be smart about investing in startups but stupid about understanding social discourse around marginalized groups.
I am not surprised at all that Graham is both of those things.