Comment by Nevermark | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nevermark | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of things that bother me these days. But particularly some things that are pervasive, unnecessary, habitual amplifiers of disagreement.

If someone is going to address extremists on an issue, don't just be anti-extremist. What empty courage is that?

Address extremists by pushing the dialog back to the real issue. In this case, treating people who have been denigrated for centuries better.

Otherwise, ungrounded one-sided criticism of extremists on one side of an issue, just gives tacit permission for the extremists on the other side. It can even be difficult to tell, whether they are not simply mirror extremists themselves. But either way, they just amplify the extremist vs. extremist narrative.

And completely distract from the real human level issues that are being hijacked.

Don't be anti-bad, while conspicuously avoiding acknowledging what would be good. How should we address discrimination against trans and other non-binary people? What changes are beneficial? What companies have DEI approaches that are good models?

PG, any thoughts?

Please, don't call out "your going too far!" - no matter how necessary or accurately - if you don't have the courage, insight, or a genuine desire to solve the underlying problem. And express "how far" you agree we should go.

Don't just poke a bear. Address the elephant!.

--

One-sided viewpoints just make an easy sport, score trivial (dare I say, also performative?) points, out of something more serious.

I.e. don't make strong arguments for or against one side of the Israeli-Palestine situation, without acknowledging the strong points you do accept as valid from both sides.

I hope I don't offend anyone by suggesting that any intellectually honest discussion of divisive views cannot possibly boil down to one-sided criticisms of other people's one-sided views.

I agree with your premise that there is often an unproductive pendulum-like phenomenon in public debates where interpretations swing from one extreme to the other, making nuanced discussions difficult.

However I don't believe that PG's article meant to address the elephant, but rather was a meta-level thesis on how he sees debates being shut down by orthodoxy, and for that he does suggest what he thinks would be a possible solution.

Perhaps the thesis could have gained in being more balanced to as you say "avoid giving tacit permissions for the extremists on the other side"? On the other hand, does one always have to shield one's expressions with disclaimers and is one not free to share thoughts however raw in order to express, discuss and learn, update our beliefs?

There likely is a bigger responsibility when one has a larger audience to avoid misinterpretations, but ultimately I believe as long as there is a rational and nuanced discussion to take the good points and have a productive debate, it should be okay.

How can we create incentives to have a more nuanced discussion?

> does one always have to shield one's expressions with disclaimers and is one not free to share thoughts however raw in order to express, discuss and learn, update our beliefs?

The problem with one-sided criticism of extremism is:

1. It is indistinguishable from the default extreme-vs-extreme debate. So it amplifies stupidity all around.

2. The takeaway is unclear. Are all programs to counterbalance discrimination just evil things from the bottom up.

3. It ignores middle ground. Guess we better give up on being more fair, and benefiting more from societies outcasts, and more fairness in general? It must be anti-capitalist, -technology, -patriotic, or something?

None of that is helpful.

So yes, I would say quite strongly, addressing complex divisive issues requires wide situational awareness, nuance, intellectual humility, curiosity, honesty, and an aim to move discussion away from division and toward solutions.

Not more reactionary communiques.

---

A completely different approach would be: these DEI programs are out of hand and creating new problems of their own. Not good. But the status quo they are meant to address isn't good either.

So, here are some thoughts on how we could systematically address harmful discrimination in a way that doesn't forget to be fair to everyone else... And fair to everyone is the point of all this, right?

If anyone might be a useful mentor here, it could be pg, if he steps back and thinks about things more. It fits with his general quest to help startups succeed on all fronts. Wisdom for handling side issues well, professionally, creatively, so they don't keep cropping up as distractions.

Does PG or YC have a sensible practical low-ideological view on ensuring hiring and employee treatment reflects and benefits from diversity, avoiding the pitfalls of unfair discrimination, without creating new ones, and defining diversity to mean ALL of us?

That might take more thought. But it would be well worth a PG post. It is also liable to hit more people FROM ALL SIDES or NO SIDES, as worthy of consideration.

You make a good point that no one else had, afaik: PG is strawmanning, and not steelmanning his opponents. This is craven.

So much said, with such fewer words ... :)

And giving voice to power vs. power, instead of to the less powerful. Reduced by both "sides" to pawns, their needs to playing cards.

> I.e. don't make strong arguments for or against one side of the Israeli-Palestine situation, without acknowledging the strong points you do accept as valid from both sides.

What Israel is doing to Palestinians last 77 years it exists is much worse than what Palestinians do to Israel on average from several perspectives by at least an order of magnitude or more (eg. amount of destruction and killing for sure, amount of subjugation, ...).

So wanting balance and giving one-sided defence to one side seems fair, regardless of any "strong points" on any side. If one has strong arguments, they should be used and voiced, because it's simply a numbers game in democracy.

Agreed. I do not suggest false equality. Or insipid "it takes two sides" type arguments.

Another advantage of fair arguments, they add credibility for calls to hold the more powerful in a situation to take more responsibility for solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com