Hacker News Reader

Comment by littlekey | Hacker News Reader

>Do we all kind of wish we worked at Stratton Oakmont for a year and made tons of money….? Probably.

Gross.

"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Dang, in general this is a good guideline that you enforce.

In this particular article, though, I think the OP's comment is relevant. "Gross" sums up pretty much how many of us feel about the quoted assertion and the overall tone of the article.

Let's put it another way. Think about an hypothetical article relevant to HN (say, something about how you can "hack" a human's response to suggestions using pheromones or whatnot) analyzing how a famous rapist used these techniques, and included the statement "Was this person a rapist? Yes. But wouldn't most of us want to use these techniques on women? Sure!".

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call such a statement gross, and wouldn't it also overshadow the rest of the article?

Let's put it another way.

Let's not put it that way, maybe?

The parallel is poor because one of these things is so much more provocative than the other you that you can't meaningfully compare the responses as analogous. The sane thing to do with an article approvingly invoking nonconsensual sexual abuse to make an unrelated point is to flag it and if it doesn't die, send the moderators an email so they can squish it.

sums up pretty much how many of us feel

The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.

On the contrary, let's. Because it's apt.

Here's an even better parallel: it's gross to dream of having the business acumen of successful drug lords or mobsters. They may excel at what they do, but still, saying "who hasn't dreamt of making lots of money like they did?" would be gross.

> The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.

You lost me. Lots of words with little relation to anything I said.

I think I explained how it's quite inapt and your response is 'it's apt'. If you think 'please don't type reflexive one word comments into HN' has 'some hypothetical about rape' as a response worth talking about, we're best off leaving things here.

Well, you did a bad job at explaining.

Both are scummy behaviors aimed at "hacking"/exploiting the human psyche for ill intents. And, in any case, I provided an even more apt comparison in the followup comment: drug lords and mobsters. Or scam artists of any kind. Such an article wouldn't be flagged on HN if it explains something technical or about the human psyche; but it's ok to respond "gross" if it contains a sentence such as the one which sparked this conversation.

> we're best off leaving things here

Agreed.

I respect that. I would argue though that this definitely is "something interesting" to discuss. I find it fascinating that the author clearly called out the illegality yet thinks it okay to do anyway, and even more interesting that they project that mindset onto others by assuming we would all do the same. But I felt my one-word answer did more to encompass my thoughts then a paragraph would have.

> If you can look past the $200M they defrauded from 1,500 investors… they were actually a pretty successful sales team.

The operative word being "if". I'm kinda with OP here either way.

That reads a lot like "if you can look past the fact Famous Serial Killer murdered people, you have to admit he was pretty skilled with knives!".

Please write more substantial and intellectually stimulating comments on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The article suggests that its author would have enjoyed an opportunity to work with the disreputable firm Stratton Oakmont, and that their motivation to do so is purely personal gain.

And while this alone would cause us to doubt the character of the author, they then go on to claim that "we", the readers of the article, share this amoral viewpoint. Or perhaps implies that we _should_ share it if we don't already.

I find this outlook to be reprehensible. Even thinking about it causes my stomach to tense.

(There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)

> (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)

Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark.

Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244

In general, I find the rest of the article more interesting, and focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.

While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.

> focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.

But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry.

This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?

> Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244

It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that:

1. There is an entire article between those two sentences.

2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional

By “intellectually stimulating”, they meant “with enough verbosity and with a high enough frequency of multisyllabic words that this sewing circle of self-congratulatory computer operators feels intellectually engaged by it”.

“Gross” contributed just as much as the 50 highly upvoted “stochastic parrot” or “WFH or die” rants I see here every day, with the added bonus of its concise nature making it easy to read.

HN needs more of these comments!

I mean, it's gross, but most of us work for monsters if you go far enough up the chain.

For the last two years, I've been trying to break into the trading world, not because I think it's this hyper-ethical thing [1], but because it pays well and it seems interesting, and I'm not really ashamed to admit it. Does that make me a whore or a mercenary or sellout? Absolutely, there's really no getting around that, but I think if most people are being honest, we're all a little selfish.

I don't think I'm an especially selfish person, and I would like to think I wouldn't defraud anyone, but I certainly have worked for companies that used very questionable labor practices in developing nations where it's hard to justify outside of "it's really cheap and it's not illegal", an of course that upsets me a little, but fundamentally Tombert is a for-profit enterprise just as much as the business that hires me.

Similarly, while it's obviously bad that they defrauded people, I don't think that that author was saying that it's good, or even good to want it. They said "kind of", sort of implying that "yeah, a part of me really would have liked to have a lot of cash and it would have been cool to get it", which I don't really think is that bad. I've thought about directly stealing money from rich people before, it would be nice to have a million bucks, but I've never done it because that would be unethical.

[1] I've actually changed my opinions on High Frequency Trading, which I used to say was evil and I don't think that anymore. I'm still not 100% convinced that option trading is ethical though.

Right. You've got to live with the ethics of the things you do (and don't do.)

I mean, he's not wrong. I'd have loved to have worked there for a year and have made tons of money.

Sure he is - he said "we all", but I count at least three of us in this specific chain who find it gross.

He also said "kind of" and "probably".

Doesn't pretty much everyone wish that they had more money? I "kind of" want to steal a Lamborghini when I see them, but I don't do it because that would be unethical because robbing people is unethical. I don't think it's gross to at least think about it.

I mean, I don't know, maybe "we all" was a bit hyperbolic but I don't think it was so bad.

I can only speak for myself. I want to have enough money to be able to comfortably provide for myself and my family, while also allowing us to be able to go and do the things we love. And - that's where we're at. We're firmly "middle class" and I'm content with the amount of money I'm making. I don't really care if I had more (it'd be nice, sure, but I don't need it), and I don't really care about fancy, overpriced, high-end goods that are, essentially, just status symbols (eg, Lamborghinis).

I also have enough money, and I'm also firmly middle class, and I'm also able to afford to do stuff I enjoy, but if I won the lottery I'm not going to say "no" to the money [1].

I don't really want to buy a Lamborghini because I agree, it's an expensive status symbol, but similarly if someone gave one to me for free, I'd take it because I think they're cool (or I could flip it for a lot of money). Sometimes I, if only for a moment, will think about how easy it might be to steal a Lamborghini and how it would be cool if I did.

(I'm just using Lamborghini as an example though, replace it with anything that you think is cool but too expensive to actually justify buying).

Does it make me a gross jerk for thinking about it? Maybe, but I don't think so; considering a bad thing isn't the same as doing that bad thing. It lives very firmly in my brain, and I'm quite confident that I wouldn't actually do anything like that.

[1] I don't actually play the lottery, just an example.

> He also said "kind of" and "probably".

Those are "probably" "kind of" weasel words to make the assertion seem less gross when it is, indeed, very gross.

This is not like dreaming of getting a Lamborghini for free. It's like "kind of" dreaming of living the life of a successful drug cartel boss. Gross.

It’s not a weasel word, because I don’t think what they were trying to say was unclear.

Maybe you’re some angel who has never wanted to do anything wrong for a single moment in your life, power to you if you are, but I think you are in the vast, vast minority.

Most people have considered doing a bad thing at least once and probably considerably more than that. I don’t think they’re bad for thinking it. I feel like that’s what the writer was trying to say.

Maybe "weasel word" wasn't the best term, what I meant is that "kind of", "probably" are words they used to deflate the emphasis of their sentence in order to make it seem less gross. This is a technique to make the meaning seem less harsh/disgusting/shocking and easier to agree with -- and you can bet they know it and use it purposefully, the whole article is written by salespeople about other salespeople and is precisely about techniques like this (see how they describe the tactical use of "fair enough", "I'm not trying to [...]", etc).

But it is gross because we can see past all of this, and the meaning of the sentence remains pretty bad.

> Maybe you’re some angel who has never wanted to do anything wrong

I've never wanted to rob or scam people, no. I'm not in the minority either.

> I've never wanted to rob or scam people, no. I'm not in the minority either.

Ok, well then I think you're lying. I don't think you're just misremembering or anything, I actively think you are being dishonest if you are genuinely saying that you've never even once wanted to steal something, if only for a moment. I'm not accusing you of actually stealing anything, but if you're claiming that you've never even once thought "it would be cool to take that thing that that person has so I could have it", then I just think you're not telling the truth.

Frankly this sanctimonious holier-than-thou pretending-to-be-offended stuff is really tiring; you decided to make a comment saying "gross" purely so you could act judgemental for something that, fundamentally, you know really wasn't that bad.

EDIT:

Sorry, for some reason I misremembered, I thought you wrote the original "gross" comment.

I still think you're lying though.

You wouldn’t care that every dollar you had was taken from some else via fraud?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com