Let's Talk About the American Dream
blog.codinghorror.comDisclosure: I helped organize this event at Cooper Union in NYC.
For those interested, Jeff Atwood (Stack Overflow/Discourse/Coding Horror) and Alexander Vindman (former NSC official) will be discussing the future of the American Dream. They'll explore how we might bridge our current divisiveness, which I'd say has been accelerated by technology.
The conversation happens in Cooper Union's historic Great Hall, where Lincoln delivered his "Right Makes Might" speech in 1860. They'll address what core values unify Americans today, how to rebuild a collective sense of purpose, and approaches to economic mobility in an era of inequality.
It's a free event on March 20th, but registration on EventBrite is required for in-person attendance (first-come-first-served).
Is Jeff Atwood among the group of people who can speak with insight on how to "bridge our current divisiveness"? The whole reason he's a public figure is from his blog posts that include a bunch of deliberately placed attitude and bombast of the sort that turns a lot of people away but is selected for anyway because it gets just as many (or more) followers, and attention is only additive.
I suggest you look at closely at DHH for an example of what you're really talking about.
I'm genuinely baffled about how to even respond to this.
That's your reply? That there's an even worse person who isn't in the slot?
"The whole reason he's a public figure is from his blog posts that include a bunch of deliberately placed attitude and bombast of the sort that turns a lot of people away but is selected for anyway because it gets just as many (or more) followers, and attention is only additive."
This is not a defensible statement *based on my writing*. Give it a shot, if you think you can pull it off. I'd like to see some real citations here rather than broad, unsupported generalizations.
Now try *that same statement against DHH's writing* -- what you said is exactly correct.
> This is not a defensible statement based on my writing.
The writing is all there is; the entire basis for the remarks is the obnoxiously cocky posts confidently published to the Coding Horror blog. (Or, I dunno, maybe things changed and that's no longer the case; I started ignoring everything published there 10+ years ago.)
> Now try that same statement against DHH's writing
Try as you might, you're not going to convince me to give enough of a shit about going off and familiarizing myself with whatever you're referring to all for the sole purpose of being able to figure out who is the biggest blowhard.
I can't make it, but I'd be interested in a summary of the event afterwards.
> How do you make long-term structural change that creates opportunity for everyone? It is an incredibly complex problem. But if we focus our efforts in a particular area, I believe we can change a lot of things in this country. Maybe not everything, but something foundational to the next part of our history as a country: how to move beyond individual generosity and toward systems that create security, dignity, and possibility for all.
In general, if you're talking equal opportunity, I won't be hard to convince. If you're moving "beyond individual generosity" to a system which forces others to be "generous" (via taxation) in order to achieve equality of outcomes, I will be very hard to convince.
Note: The event will be live-streamed and replayable on Cooper Union's YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/@cooperunion
The notion of "individual generosity" presupposes that each individual is morally entitled to dispose, as the individual sees fit, of the assets that the individual happens to control, whether in consequence of the individual's efforts, membership in the Lucky Sperm Club, a good divorce settlement, or whatever. As Elizabeth Warren said back in 2011, that disregards all the other factors that went into the individual's coming into control of those assets. [0]
It's reminiscent of what NY Times lead economic correspondent Binyamin Appelbaum said in The Economists' Hour about Milton Friedman, the famed free-market evangelist: Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.
I’m curious what the is would look like to you, I mean everything in degrees, because one could argue something like billionaires can afford to fly everywhere they want, and taxation for highways is used to provide equality of <transportation> outcome.
So are you arguing taxation is theft and we should abolish the IRS and let private organizations fund through donations fund everything, or are you just on a different area of the continuum than I am.
> So are you arguing [...]
No, I have no issue with tax-funded police, firemen and roads; nor with equal protection under the law, or equal civil rights for all citizens :-)
But if you start to talk about "moving beyond individual generosity" I start to get the sense that you want to force me to be part of a TBD "collective generosity".
If we let private organizations fund everything, who enforces the contracts that use of anything will require? Does ever organization require its own police force or militia? I'm confused.
Everyone is confused by extreme libertarians/anarchocapatilists
Related previous discussion of "Stay Gold": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278