4 ms·
What the OP is referring to is exactly the kind of argument you are making* - since you can always scope the culture and ecosystem to exclude the kind of people
by forgotpwtomain 11y ago
What the OP is referring to is exactly the kind of argument you are making* - since you can always scope the culture and ecosystem to exclude the kind of people that should be blamed for X.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- whack 11y agoAgain, you haven't addressed any of the things I said at all. If you have a couple of people whom you know to be at-fault, and you want to indict the broader SV culture/eco-system to be at-fault, you need to show that those people are emblematic of the SV culture/eco-system. The NYT author has taken a reasonable stab at refuting that assertion. I'd love to see you make a similarly credible assertion, before expecting anyone to take you seriously. Yes, such an argument is subjective in nature, but so are many important things in life which can't simply be ignored because they are subjective. Your assertion that SV culture is at fault, just because person X did something wrong and person X lives in SV, is absurd. By that same argument, if some NYC billionaire were to move to SV today, and bankrolls some company founded by another NYC guy who just moved to SV and proceeds to engage in unethical behavior, it would be a damning indictment of SV culture. Such an argument is patently absurd and violates all common sense.