Hacker News Reader

Comment by varjag | Hacker News Reader

When a public figure you used to support disappoints you in some substantial way, it's best to change your views rather than paint yourself in the corner by rationalizing their abhorrence.

All humans are fallible. There have been some regrettable Nobel Peace Prizes out there, and Amnesty International had to call off some of their awards.

View on HN

I don't know who he disappointed, but he didn't disappoint me. His analysis of murderous regime is spot on, and there is no discussion about that. There are only character assassinations and name callings for totally unrelated things from his opponents. First discreditation, then disqualification and lastly liquidation.

There have been a number of notable Soviet dissidents who were no less apt in their criticism of the regime yet did not descend to imperialism or anti-Semitism.

How does the existence of more notable dissidents make his critique of the regime invalid or less true? If you found out that Newton was a thief, would that invalidate his laws of physics for you?

Don't ascribe me your ideas please. Did I say anywhere that his critique of regime wasn't true?

What about the killings and other atrocities committed by Putin's oligarchy? What about the suppression of dissent? What do you think of that, I'm genuinely curious. This is not an attempt to derail, it's that how can "his analysis of murderous regimes be spot on" if he supports Putin?

Well maybe he is imperfect. He did some things in his life right and some wrong. Aren't you like that? If you make a mistake today, does that invalidate all your previous work? And please have some perspective. Putin's Russia is not a place where I would want to live today, but compared to the Soviet union, I would take Putin's Russia in a heartbeat.

>When a public figure you used to support disappoints you in some substantial way, it's best to change your views

Why? Just because an author disappoints you, doesn't mean you need to try to undo your enjoyment of a book they wrote.

Solzhenitsyn in particular is a political writer/figure who largely overshadows in the West other Soviet dissidents. His (put mildly) ethnocentrism discredits the overall message and makes him unsuitable champion of their case.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. He isn't a champion of whatever, and nobody is trying to make him one. He's a dead author, that's it. This isn't a religious movement or something, it is people liking a book. People liked a book, then you said they aren't allowed to like it because you used one of the progressive thought terminating cliches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com