Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

I was afraid this would be another lecture about trolls but it turned out to be quite profound.

We tend to define ourselves by what we like and dislike, which is fine, except, most of the time, it's not based on fact, but on arbitrary decisions.

This is quite obvious with kids; for example, my two younger kids (6 and 7, boy and girl) try to hate the preferred foods of one another, even if they have to admit they like its individual components. The boy loves fruit yogurt but "hates" fruits (will leave the table when someone's eating a raw fruit next to him), and the girl actually does love fruits but decided she will never eat yogurt... or use a spoon.

This is all fake, it's all an act, and yet it's quite powerful and difficult to overcome. (What gives it away though, is that these "tastes" vary according to location; when in school, those preferences disappear!)

We adults use spoons, but act the same with literature, or really most of our tastes in arts or crafts or products; we like the idea of ourselves not liking this or that (hello, vegans! ;-)

Dislike and contempt is also much easier to develop and maintain than an actual taste that has to be nurtured; it's like free money.

I really should get around to reading Houellebecq.

There is a timeless quote by _why (of Ruby fame) that goes something like this: "You need to create, because otherwise you are defined by your taste in things." (my terrible paraphrasing).

"when you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create."

I'm not a huge fan of _why (apropos of the article, I have read some of his work), but I think this quote deserves to be posted in its entirety:

“when you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create.”

So you've now judged _why to not be to your taste, but this quote to. What have you created?

(I've judged your comment, and I've not created jack)

But that's only his opinion of others. He divided people between those who are defined as creators and those who are not. And those who are not are reduced to their `taste' - and they are the one who narrow and exclude people ?!. But some people simply don't want to create, don't want to sprinkle the whole world with their little dot-me stickers.

All glory to the entreprecreator, the ubermensch of the internet.

Seriously, let people try to define who they are themselves. Not a quote, a guru or a motivational speaker who tell you `you are this, you are that, they are this, they are that'. Or worse, any artist trying to define himself through the impact of his works or personality on... others.

It's probably even worse than that: we probably actively dislike what we don't know.

First, it's an excuse to not know; I don't know this, not because I'm lazy and didn't make the effort to check it out, but because, you see, it's bad, or beyond me.

And second, it's hard to dislike something you actually got to know, because knowing requires some sort of empathy.

You can list all the problems with something you know, and say why it's not as good as it could be, etc., but if you declare that you "hate" it whole, it's a sign you don't know much about it.

> it's hard to dislike something you actually got to know, because knowing requires some sort of empathy.

I can't say that I agree. I don't see why dislike has to be irrational.

> You can list all the problems with something you know, and say why it's not as good as it could be, etc., but if you declare that you "hate" it whole, it's a sign you don't know much about it.

It's not one or the other. That list of "all the problems with something you know" is an explanation for why you dislike that something.

> We adults use spoons, but act the same with literature, or really most of our tastes in arts or crafts or products; we like the idea of ourselves not liking this or that (hello, vegans! ;-)

> Dislike and contempt is also much easier to develop and maintain than an actual taste that has to be nurtured; it's like free money.

> I really should get around to reading Houellebecq.

Try absorbing this material http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2015/04/29/rapunzels-gu... before getting into Houellebecq.

I'm not a vegan so apologies if I'm speaking out of turn, but: I know there are a ton of temporary vegans out there doing it for attention but there are a lot of vegans that are doing it because they really do consider it unethical. I've also found that it's usually the omnivores that take issue with the vegans rather than the other way around.

Most lifer vegans I've met try to remain low key about it for the most part since it tends to result in the same arguments or discussions and it gets old quick.

This exactly. I've found out long after meeting some of my friends and acquaintances that they were vegetarian or vegan only when it was relevant (meal plans, cateringg, etc.) and never would have guessed were it not for, in other cases, omnivores berating them for their preferences. As someone who is sometimes a vegan, I've actively tried to hide it in public because it's almost never looked upon favorably by omnivores, who as far as I can tell seem to assume that vegans think they are superior to everyone else. Never met a vegan who was this way, though I'm sure they exist.

It probably comes down to the introduction of ethics into the mix. If ethics were not introduced as part of the argument for the dietary choice, most omnivores who make it an issue probably wouldn't.

Personally, I don't care what others eat. They could eat tasteless fiber, or artificial meat-tasting protein or actual meats. It's their choice.

On the other hand, if I'm a guest and there are only vegan choices, then that what there is, likewise if I'm a guest and there is only steak, that's what there is (and I don't like steak).

Is ethic a taste?

Oh yes it is.

It's entirely dependent on context, for one thing: "good" or "bad" mean very different things to different people (and peoples).

Is this equivalent?:

A tastes good. A is good.

It's probably even worse than that: we probably actively dislike what we don't know.

First, it's an excuse to not know; I don't know this, not because I'm lazy and didn't make the effort to check it out, but because, you know, it's bad, or beyond me.

And second, it's hard to dislike something you actually got to know, because knowing requires some sort of empathy.

You can list all the problems with something you know, and say why it's not as good as it could be, etc., but if you declare that you "hate" it whole, it's a sign you don't know much about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com