5 ms·

Even when dealing with people I don't like and with whom I almost 100% of the time disagree, I've found it much better to try first to understand what the perso

by jccc 11y ago

Even when dealing with people I don't like and with whom I almost 100% of the time disagree, I've found it much better to try first to understand what the person was actually trying to say before jumping reflexively to the most uncharitable interpretation of what the person said.

mikeash 11y ago
OK, how exactly are we supposed to do this here? The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said. Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion. Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction. For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).
- tomp 11y ago
  > but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" And only a single stupid interpretation results in mapping "against anti-colonialism" to "pro colonialism", but you chose exactly that one.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    What leads you to believe that?
- jakejake 11y ago
  He's one of the original creators of one of the first web browsers - arguably one of the early architects of the web. And since has parlayed his fortune to become one of the top investors in silicon Valley. And now, apparently a self-righteous hypocrite who is arguing against net neutrality because it suits his financial interests in Facebook.
temp 11y ago
>jumping reflexively to the most uncharitable interpretation of what the person said. There isn't a charitable interpretation to what he said. There's only a "damage control" interpretation. And that one doesn't really fit well with the fact that he blocked people who retweetted (and hence gave more prominence) to his original tweet.
- jccc 11y ago
  Which interpretation is at least as uncharitable as the one that thinks he said India should have remained a colony of Britain? Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well. I don't care and am not qualified to argue those. The point is that we can't have meaningful conversations when so many people jump immediately on the misinterpretation of a statement that is most useful for bringing out the hate for the one who spoke it.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well Agreed. The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. The bottom line is a VC has said a really stupid thing which goes against his earlier pronouncements on NN, because he literally has money on the line as an FB investor. Which ever way you look at it, he sounds like an out-of-touch corporatist.
    - jccc 11y ago
      Then criticize him on that basis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021 The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. If we value having any kind of meaningful discussion then does it really not matter that we criticize on the grounds you mention and not just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist?
      - temp 11y ago

by jccc 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

OK, how exactly are we supposed to do this here? The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said. Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion. Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction. For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).

tomp 11y ago
> but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" And only a single stupid interpretation results in mapping "against anti-colonialism" to "pro colonialism", but you chose exactly that one.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What leads you to believe that?
jakejake 11y ago
He's one of the original creators of one of the first web browsers - arguably one of the early architects of the web. And since has parlayed his fortune to become one of the top investors in silicon Valley. And now, apparently a self-righteous hypocrite who is arguing against net neutrality because it suits his financial interests in Facebook.

temp 11y ago

>jumping reflexively to the most uncharitable interpretation of what the person said. There isn't a charitable interpretation to what he said. There's only a "damage control" interpretation. And that one doesn't really fit well with the fact that he blocked people who retweetted (and hence gave more prominence) to his original tweet.

jccc 11y ago
Which interpretation is at least as uncharitable as the one that thinks he said India should have remained a colony of Britain? Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well. I don't care and am not qualified to argue those. The point is that we can't have meaningful conversations when so many people jump immediately on the misinterpretation of a statement that is most useful for bringing out the hate for the one who spoke it.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well Agreed. The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. The bottom line is a VC has said a really stupid thing which goes against his earlier pronouncements on NN, because he literally has money on the line as an FB investor. Which ever way you look at it, he sounds like an out-of-touch corporatist.
  - jccc 11y ago
    Then criticize him on that basis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021 The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. If we value having any kind of meaningful discussion then does it really not matter that we criticize on the grounds you mention and not just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist?
    - temp 11y ago