Peter Shih Complains About the Shithole City He's Forced to Make His Millions In | Hacker News Reader

Peter Shih Complains About the Shithole City He's Forced to Make His Millions In

uptownalmanac.com

65 pointstitlex31 comments

I’m not sure which is more bitter, the original article or its response. If you’re going to disagree with someone, actually address the points he makes. Attacking him personally is petty and isn’t conducive to real discussion. Peter's feelings aren't necessarily without merit--why not discuss them?

From Shih's post on Medium.

"5. 49ers No, not the football team, they’re great. I’m referring to all the girls who are obviously 4's and behave like they are 9's. Just because San Francisco has the worst Female to Male ratio in the known universe doesn’t give you the right to be a bitch all the time"

What kind of real discussion can there be about sexist douchebaggery such as this?

Again, I’m not agreeing with the sexist commentary (or necessarily any of it for that matter). The response is equally unproductive though.

...worst Female to Male ratio in the known universe...

I guess he hasn't been to Alaska or North Dakota. Anyone having this experience in a major city needs to find new places to hang out. They do exist, but you might not see all your existing friends there.

In all seriousness, one of the few things that makes me hesitant about moving to SF is that it would be the third such city I've lived in (after Darwin and Perth).

The misogynistic language wasn't necessary. However, I believe that supply and demand applies roughly to dating markets. When one sex is in short supply, it is "bid up" by members of the other sex.

While my strategy has been to improve my own value, there's only so far that can go. I can also improve my outcomes by avoiding buyer's markets.

Calling a bunch of women who may very well be bitches doesn't really phase me, it's the tolerance of said bitchiness when sex appeal comes into account that I find disgusting.

If you care about your values and standards for behavior they should apply globally, regardless of gender, race or physical appearance.

Can a comment be sexist and true at the same time?

Since sexism is a function of (shared) subjectivity, the comment could be believed, but it wouldn't acquire a degree of truth beyond that.

The OP said that 'there are a lot of women in SF who are rather plain looking but due to gender imbalance act as if they were extremely attractive'.

To me that this statement can be true or false (I've never been to SF so have no idea). It either is or it's not true.

Separately from that, one can argue 'It's sexist to grade women based on their looks and to likewise imply that attractive women can be expected to act differently than homely ones'.

"Plain looking" can be true or false? By what standard? It's also an opinion that the way a person acts is due to demographics. tl;dr: neither true nor false, just a belief, a value judgement.

Some people in this world would definitely say that it's not sexist to grade women on appearance, and in fact it is a value judgement held in positive regard in many parts of the world. That there is a class distinction that implies standards of behavior follows from this.

Right - it's a value judgement, I agree. With which one can agree or disagree (ie find it true or false - not in a axiomatic sense that 2+2=4 true, but in a 'most people find it so' true).

But the commenter who said 'it's sexist, nothing to discuss' avoids have to make that judgement. He prefers to just say 'I choose to label certain topics taboo (ie label sexist), hence avoid having to discuss them'

You may want to read the entire paragraph - he concludes with this phrase - "doesn’t give you the right to be a bitch all the time". He's basically saying that he thinks attractive girls (9s) behave like bitches all the time.

This isn't about value judgements of attractiveness, nasty enough as that can be.

The misogyny and bigotry are what really get to me here. Not only does he explicitly call SF women unattractive bitches, he makes a point to use the metaphor of PMS to describe the weather. Unnecessary, much? Of course, he goes on to describe the "transvestite to taxi ratio" as "literally off the charts."

He also describes the Tenderloin as though the Bronx "took a shit all over Manhattan." Keep that shih-t out of Peter's backyard, folks, where it belongs. Peter Shih doesn't go to the Bronx. The Bronx is dirty. There are poor people there. Peter Shih is not poor. He is rich. He is clean.

So he's too good for our women, our trannies, and our poor people? What kind of argument can you make against this other than "You are a disgustingly bad person?"

I'm pretty sure Peter's feelings about women are entirely without merit. His feelings about public transit and the legally-mandated bar-closing hours, fine. But when he's actually just saying sexist, homophobic things and getting mad at homeless people for being homeless, that's not a real discussion.

Can anything productive result from a response? Should critics of his account for the entirety of the massive issues he decries? I mean, there's not much to say about the 49ers thing besides to infer that he's having trouble finding dates. What to say about his attitude toward the homeless that doesn't involve recounting the history of the government throwing the mentally ill out on the streets or in jail? OK, so that's about 5,000 words right there. The weather? Please.

I live in San Francisco. I don't really care if other people like it or not. If they bitch about why they don't like it, it's up to me to stop reading/engaging. Let it go people, and move on. Why do we care so much what one person thinks?

And frankly, why is not okay for someone to disagree with the mainstream perspective? For the people who say he should move, I'm sure that if his work commitments allowed it, he would. But that's really not a solution. We can't kick out everyone who doesn't like it here.

Stay classy, San Francisco.

I lived in the SV for ~15 years, and for family reasons I've been a resident of SF since mid-2010. Oh, sunshine and parking lots, how I miss thee!

I have to strongly agree with almost all of Peter's points. I love SF, but hate living here.

Quite often, I find that I'd rather stay in than deal with the frustrations.. and, this has made me the most socially isolated I've been since I was a kid.

I live in a great home in a beautiful but remote part of the city. Nothing is convenient. The nearest restaurant or convenience store is a 25 minute walk away. Traveling just 5 miles to a F/T job in the soma can take longer than driving from the south peninsula.. and public transit in this city is terrible, so I just won't tolerate working at a F/T job that requires daily presence in an office. Parking, if you can find it, is expensive and just a PITA.

The things I love and do to blow off steam are only available outside of the city.. Trail running the PG&E trail at Rancho San Antonio was one of them, and I'd do it several times a week before coming here. Now, getting to them takes a 90 minute round-trip drive.

Sometimes you're heads down on code, and you just want to refuel and get out to clear your head, so you jump in your car and drive a couple minutes to a 24 hour drive-through to grab some food. Not possible here. Sure, you can hit the Jack in the Box on Geary, which does have a parking lot, but that can be perilous.. Or, you might need to pick up some RAM or a new HD.. The Fry's in Palo Alto was 10 minutes away from my last home.

The SV has evolved the support the tech lifestyle.. and it will always be more friendly and efficient for many of us. Day to day living is generally easier for most. The schools are significantly better for your kids, too. SF is, and will always be SF, such as it is.

Valleywag version (blocked from HN submission): http://valleywag.gawker.com/startup-stud-hates-homeless-peop....

This post was on the home page then randomly dropped to the bottom of the second. Considering the amount of upvotes and the time it was posted this post should have still been on the home page.

Yup, bit strange how a post about a YC founder has plummeted into obscurity so quickly. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Stupid personal drama about some random person who has the most tenuous connection to this community (as far as I can tell he's never posted nn or engaged with HN at all) isn't interesting or noteworthy. That's probably how it's dropped off so quickly.

You would characterize being a YC founder as a tenuous connection to HN? Really? Huh.

The funny thing is he is mostly right on his 10 points, just not phrased in a very sympathetic way.

If I could live in Switzerland or New Zealand or Seattle (ideal), Vancouver BC or Vancouver WA or Austin or Hong Kong (ok), or Berlin or Prague or other EE or Reno or Las Vegas (tolerable), and raise money/hire/meet people/etc as easily as in SFBA, I'd be on the next fucking plane. As it is, SFBA is tolerable only because there is Bay Area outside San Francisco.

Shih is shrill, but the response is also. A lot of his criticisms are based in a kernel of truth for a lot of people (especially the public transport, the nightlife and the bicylists), and while he may have intended satire, the delivery was caustic and withering. I can find parallel complaints for almost any major metropole.

This was published on my birthday so I thought it would be good to reflect on the same points:

1. Public Transportation - The MUNI is definitely one of the worst run transportation systems for a large city but I find that having a city that's only 6 miles wide means that I can find other means of getting around including biking, walking, getting a Lyft (Uber if I must), and occasionally catching a MUNI train which I find much more reliable than MUNI buses which I avoid at all costs.

2. Parking - See #1. If you have a bike, you will get places much faster than in a car. In terms of parking, you can use apps like SFPark to find open spots and garages. The prices are pretty ridiculous so I tend to find more happiness in walking or biking around.

3. Weather - The variable weather means a bunch of diverse microclimates all around the city and beyond which makes for amazing hiking and exploration. I love going from sunshine to dense fog as I cross the Golden Gate bridge and then back to sunshine again on the other side, it reminds me of the awesomeness of nature.

4. Start Up Guys - I don't disagree that there's more to life than the startup scene but I don't think there's anything wrong with people who have found something they are so interested in that they can't stop talking about it. Bask in the energy and excitement that they have, there's nothing wrong with that.

5. 49ers - My understanding was that San Francisco is a great place for guys especially since there is a significant part of the male population that is off the market. Other guys I've talked to have found the same thing. In terms of girls who are "4's" behaving like they are "9's" is more due to the fact that people here probably don't focus as much on looks alone like they might do in other places. Girls who have high self esteem and have a good sense of self and self-worth should behave like 9's because they are. Who are we to judge?

6. Homeless People - Pretty good way to reinforce stereotypes about homeless people by painting them all as drug addicts and alcoholics. You know why they are the "craziest"? It's because many of them do have mental health issues and as a society based on our past and current policies have failed to adequately address the situation. I'm sure you're inconvenienced by the homeless folks who remind you that there are those less fortunate but you might want to take it as a constant reminder of how good we have it and to enjoy all the niceties that we take for granted in everyday life -- like a hot meal and a roof over our heads.

7. Crime - The Tenderloin is R-O-U-G-H, no doubt about it but it's one of the only areas of this prosperous city that working class families can afford to live in. Fear mongering keeps folks away and further isolates the area and introduces more likelihood of crime. I'm excited that Sunday Streets this weekend will be in the Tenderloin so folks can see that there's more to the TL than crime and addicts. Eat at some great restaurants in the Tenderloin including the original Lers Ros (better than the Hayes Valley location), Turtle Tower and other awesome places.

8. Nightlife - It's certainly no New York but there's plenty happening in SF and yes the 2AM close time does suck but if you know where to go, the party lives on into the night. What I love about nightlife is that it's not just clubs and bars, you can find a diverse range of activities in SF, from poetry readings to spoken word slams to BDSM lectures to Jersey-Shore style clubbing. There's something for everyone. Just make sure you pre-plan how you're getting home (psssst! try making a friend and crashing at their place near downtown instead!)

9. Cost of Living - I can't argue about this one but I do feel that living in San Francisco should cost more especially when you consider the amazing beauty all around you. Cross the bridge and you're in the Marin Headlands where you can hike along the Pacific Coast with hundreds of miles of trails within minutes of a major city. 3 hours away and you have world class skiing. 2 hours south and you have world class golf. 1 hour north and you're at the epicenter of wine making in the New World. Outside of New York and Vancouver, where else will you find an urban park as large as Golden Gate Park to enjoy? It's an amazing confluence of culture, food, arts and nature.

10. Bicyclists - Do I stop for all stop signs? Not really but I always slow down to a crawl and look both ways before crossing. Bicyclists definitely should do a better job of observing the rules of the road but I also love that this city is so pro bicyling with bike lanes and a positive bike culture. The drivers here are also waaaaaaay more respectful about sharing the road which makes biking here much safer than in New York and Los Angeles. I love that the city is so compact, you can see so much on a bike in just a few hours.

TLDR; Yeah, some things suck about SF but look on the bright side and explore all the awesomeness around you.

Ad hominem much?

Ad hominem doesn't invalidate the criticism, it just means it speaks to the character and/or credibility of the person being criticized.

Yes, I know. But there is nothing in the Athor's atricle that warrants the personal/character attack. To illustrate, lets take a look at this list of top 10 reasons to hate SF, from another author circa 2006:

Top Reasons Why I Hate San Francisco:

1. NO LEFT TURNS

2. The lack of parking

3. The plentiful supply of homeless people

4. Hills, hills, hills--good for views, bad for safety

5. Frequent events/protests/parades/festivals that snarl up traffic for no good reason whatsoever

6. The atrociously cold weather

7. The nutball politicians who run the joint

8. The crappy public transportation system, which only seems functional in comparison to the even worse nightmares in other cities. Being the smartest retard ain't something to be proud of.

9. Every miserable night on the town I've ever spent in SF, which seem to devolve into a Sisyphean quest to find "the" right bar or nightclub

10. The smug, self-satisfied attitude of residents who are convinced that they live the greatest city in the world. It's the people who claim to love the environment, then commute to jobs in San Jose that really burn me up.

Flame away, SF residents! [1,2]

3, 6, 8, 9, 10 Are basically similar points that are made, apparently quite often. There is nothing clever/witty to be gained by trying refute these points out of hand, or being a bully to anyone who raises them (ie, like by smearing their reputation, etc).

[1] http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-i-hate-san-francisc...

[2] http://whysfreallyisthatbad.com/ [op-cit]

The whole post is a character attack on himself. Total own-goal. I suppose in that way, criticism can be seen as a distasteful pile-on.

http://whysfreallyisthatbad.com/postlude/

I didn't read all the comments, but that one's no better. Point the first: the second sentence. Point the second: why isn't she dating the guy she's talking to, the stud, the one she's getting along with so well? Why not even address that? A whole bunch of Fundamental Attribution Errors dressed up in blinders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com