3 ms·

>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 "

by 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
      >just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist? It's not a mischaracterization. Just because he now regrets calling his opponents "anti-colonialists" (or rather because the internet made him regret it) does not mean I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Did he explicitly state that he thinks India would be better off under colonial rule? No. Did he call opponents of Free Basics "anti-colonialist"? If he's uninformed about what colonialism did to India, then he should shut his mouth about it. But that would be too hard seeing as he has personal interest in Facebook getting a monopoly there and offering a second-class internet experience without having to invest anything into bandwidth (which would be paid for by the state). Besides, the so-called "explanation" of his views in further tweets makes it look even worse because "anti-colonialism" is apparently very close to "nationalism". So those filthy Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly.
      - jccc 11y ago
        Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly. ... which is still different from being in favor of or somehow defending colonialism (leaving aside the notion that he must think of them as "filthy" Indians). We can criticize Andreessen for any among a giant pile of good reasons for doing so, while understanding that in this instance he was talking about something like anti-Westernism and should have used something like that phrase instead of the one he did. 100% of your dislike for him remains and is well-founded without undermining your argument with the belief that he really thinks those "filthy Indians" ought never to have escaped colonial rule. (I have zero motivation to defend Andreessen on anything he's actually said or done -- I just object to the misinterpretation and mischaracterization going on here because it destroys valuable conversation and debate.)
        jccc 11y ago
        Would it help HN readers if I clarified that the first line in my post above ("Indians are actually being nationalists...") is a QUOTE of the preceding comment? Those are not my words -- I am responding to those words.

by temp 11y ago

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
    >just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist? It's not a mischaracterization. Just because he now regrets calling his opponents "anti-colonialists" (or rather because the internet made him regret it) does not mean I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Did he explicitly state that he thinks India would be better off under colonial rule? No. Did he call opponents of Free Basics "anti-colonialist"? If he's uninformed about what colonialism did to India, then he should shut his mouth about it. But that would be too hard seeing as he has personal interest in Facebook getting a monopoly there and offering a second-class internet experience without having to invest anything into bandwidth (which would be paid for by the state). Besides, the so-called "explanation" of his views in further tweets makes it look even worse because "anti-colonialism" is apparently very close to "nationalism". So those filthy Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly.
    - jccc 11y ago
      Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly. ... which is still different from being in favor of or somehow defending colonialism (leaving aside the notion that he must think of them as "filthy" Indians). We can criticize Andreessen for any among a giant pile of good reasons for doing so, while understanding that in this instance he was talking about something like anti-Westernism and should have used something like that phrase instead of the one he did. 100% of your dislike for him remains and is well-founded without undermining your argument with the belief that he really thinks those "filthy Indians" ought never to have escaped colonial rule. (I have zero motivation to defend Andreessen on anything he's actually said or done -- I just object to the misinterpretation and mischaracterization going on here because it destroys valuable conversation and debate.)
      - jccc 11y ago
        Would it help HN readers if I clarified that the first line in my post above ("Indians are actually being nationalists...") is a QUOTE of the preceding comment? Those are not my words -- I am responding to those words.