Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I LOVE that Paul Graham posted this just a day after posting Mark Twain's "corn-pone opinions" with no sense of irony or self awareness.

""" "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."...

The black philosopher's idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities."""

This billionaire's opinion of wealth inequality, his own part in it, and the straw men he battles are the very essence of corn-pone based thinking that Twain is speaking to.

Graham's (toxic and highly biased) opinion about wealth inequality is a condition of how he gets his corn-pone every day. To him, however, this corn-pone opinion becomes the very essence of rational thinking amongst himself and his peers (like Marc Andreesen and his periodic twitterisms).



I noticed this exact same thing. Funny how awareness of a cognitive trope doesn't confer protection, eh?

Anyways, hypocrisy haunts us all.


It's particularly disturbing when his wealth makes him influential.

He has the material means to not need corn-pone opinions but instead holds to them and encourages them in his followers.


The all-caps sarcasm here seems predictive of the complete factual inaccuracy of what follows. PG posted the Mark Twain article in 2004.


Citation needed.

Your quibble over the precise date of the post seems predictive of an inability to deal with the larger points raised.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822640

Since you used the date to falsely justify an ad hominem—the polar opposite of a "larger point"—it's not a quibble how wrong you got it.


Ad hominem doesn't quite mean what you suggest.

The two postings are directly related and not an attack based on his wearing of red shirts on thursdays.

From the wikipedia """Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"""


I think part of the point is that pg didn't "post" these to HN himself at all. Someone else submitted a blog post from pg from 2004, and then someone else submitted this recent blog post. In other words, the author of the posts didn't submit them for discussion on HN at all, counter to the insinuation you appear to have made.


> Citation needed.

Actually just a bit of research was needed, but I've done that for you: Internet Archive[1] and previous Hacker News discussion[2].

If you want people to take your points seriously I wouldn't recommend such unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/corn...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=189873


Actually thanks for the web archive method I'll use that again.

I was factually confused by this undated repost, but what was unneccessary or unwarranted?

Does the timing in posts make this deeply self involved opinion ok?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: