2 ms·

I am not making the point that he didn't literally say what people are choosing to assume he meant. I am making the point that the assumption people are making

by jccc 11y ago

I am not making the point that he didn't literally say what people are choosing to assume he meant. I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him. And I am making the point that employing this misinterpretation to criticize him undermines the important, substantive reasons to criticize him. (It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)

kafkaesq 11y ago
I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him. But (if you mean this idea that he specifically wants to bring back British colonialism) I don't anyone thinks that he meant that. So it seems like a weird charge to defend him against. If that's not what you meant (by "the assumption people are making"), please clarify. (It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.) Sorry, I was just trying to simplify your text to make it easier to respond to that what seemed to be the core import of what you were saying.
- jccc 11y ago
  I don't think anyone thinks that he meant that. The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Andreessen's even been forced to say, "To be clear, I am 100% opposed to colonialism, and 100% in favor of independence and freedom, in any country, including India." https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928 Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation? The original title of the Bloomberg article (which has since been rewritten, and is the submitted article for this HN thread) was "Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World," with subheds to the same effect.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Without dissecting what Bloomberg may or may not have meant with their temporary headline, it seems you're (mistakenly) assuming that people have been somehow reacting more to Bloomberg's (since retracted) one-line description of what Andreessen said than by the substance he actually did say (and his immediate follow-up remarks, which to say the least, weren't particularly apologetic). Most readers on HN go straight to the source, and don't attach much weight to catchy headlines. Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation? It's a fairly typical form of ass-covering to categorically "reject" a position one didn't actually make (as a way of deflecting attention from from the somewhat more nuanced, but just the same, boneheaded and disturbing statement that one did, in fact, make). You'll notice he isn't trying to explain just what he did mean by his initial tweet, right? That's because he knows there's no way he can really salvage himself. And BTW: The Internet hate machine on this issue It's not a "hate machine." Andreessen did say something pretty darn stupid and and offensive (his subsequent and less than entirely convincing attempts to talk his way down from what he said notwithstanding). And is being rightly called out for it.

by jccc 11y ago

kafkaesq 11y ago

I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him. But (if you mean this idea that he specifically wants to bring back British colonialism) I don't anyone thinks that he meant that. So it seems like a weird charge to defend him against. If that's not what you meant (by "the assumption people are making"), please clarify. (It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.) Sorry, I was just trying to simplify your text to make it easier to respond to that what seemed to be the core import of what you were saying.

jccc 11y ago
I don't think anyone thinks that he meant that. The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Andreessen's even been forced to say, "To be clear, I am 100% opposed to colonialism, and 100% in favor of independence and freedom, in any country, including India." https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928 Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation? The original title of the Bloomberg article (which has since been rewritten, and is the submitted article for this HN thread) was "Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World," with subheds to the same effect.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Without dissecting what Bloomberg may or may not have meant with their temporary headline, it seems you're (mistakenly) assuming that people have been somehow reacting more to Bloomberg's (since retracted) one-line description of what Andreessen said than by the substance he actually did say (and his immediate follow-up remarks, which to say the least, weren't particularly apologetic). Most readers on HN go straight to the source, and don't attach much weight to catchy headlines. Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation? It's a fairly typical form of ass-covering to categorically "reject" a position one didn't actually make (as a way of deflecting attention from from the somewhat more nuanced, but just the same, boneheaded and disturbing statement that one did, in fact, make). You'll notice he isn't trying to explain just what he did mean by his initial tweet, right? That's because he knows there's no way he can really salvage himself. And BTW: The Internet hate machine on this issue It's not a "hate machine." Andreessen did say something pretty darn stupid and and offensive (his subsequent and less than entirely convincing attempts to talk his way down from what he said notwithstanding). And is being rightly called out for it.