4 ms·

It's hard to argue that it hasn't been an unalloyed good for founders. Given that such a list can't have a high degree of transparency attached to it for a num

It's hard to argue that it hasn't been an unalloyed good for founders. Given that such a list can't have a high degree of transparency attached to it for a number of legal and practical reasons, it would be hard to argue anything in particular about it.

tptacek 9y ago
Again, if that's true for a list of harassing VCs, it's doubly true for all the other stuff that gets recorded by YC on VC reports. I'm going to be more candid than I should, in the interest of not wasting time: the only reason people are freaking out about this list is: 1. It's been described as a "blacklist" and people have a visceral reaction to that particular term, even though the moral equivalent of blacklists occurs in every other business situation in which reputation is tracked. 2. There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues. If you don't trust YC, this shouldn't be the issue that worries you about them; they've been using their influence this way for years and years, and they haven't told you a single thing about it. The only thing that's really happening here in this announcement is that YC is being open about it for this particular issue --- obviously, in order to put VC firms on notice. There are things I don't trust YC with, but defending the interests of founders just isn't one of them. Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues. Therein lies the big disadvantage of the politics of outrage. Any movement that can't organize itself to make the tactical climb onto the moral high ground will continue to wallow in the lowland quagmires of outrage. The most unreasonable of one side will anger the most unreasonable of the other in an unending cycle of recruitment through the viral nature of outrage on social media. The "leaderless" movements of the 21st century are just this, and are just doing this. (Yes, I am seemingly obliged to repost this. I will repost this as many times as I can manage! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc ) There's nothing that involves subtlety and sophistication to understand which is going to benefit from "discussion" in a state of outrage. Racism and sexism in the 21st century are two topics which fit this. For example my "lived experience" tells me that racist micro-aggressions exist, they often coexist with forms of sexually charged transgressive psychological warfare. However, my lived experience also informs me that going around in a militant, accusatory state to combat such things is like emotional carpet bombing -- in that there is an almost complete certainty of hurting your own cause in the long term in several ways. (By causing collateral damage to innocents, for one.) So is there a point to getting upset about Y Combinator's list? No. Just about anyone has bigger fish to fry. It's also a good idea to steer clear of both such controversies and the broken individuals who might seek to exploit such controversies. If someone is upset about such a thing, it probably means there's some kind of magical thinking going on and there's a need for some introspection. (Y Combinator isn't an oracle, pg and everyone involved are just ordinary human beings, and your feelings of security about the world shouldn't depend on a world view that requires woo-woo thinking.) (tptacek -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think this is the right place to say these things.) EDIT: Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different. tl;dr -- If one doesn't think YC has their head in the right place, one shouldn't be doing business with them.

tptacek 9y ago

Again, if that's true for a list of harassing VCs, it's doubly true for all the other stuff that gets recorded by YC on VC reports. I'm going to be more candid than I should, in the interest of not wasting time: the only reason people are freaking out about this list is: 1. It's been described as a "blacklist" and people have a visceral reaction to that particular term, even though the moral equivalent of blacklists occurs in every other business situation in which reputation is tracked. 2. There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues. If you don't trust YC, this shouldn't be the issue that worries you about them; they've been using their influence this way for years and years, and they haven't told you a single thing about it. The only thing that's really happening here in this announcement is that YC is being open about it for this particular issue --- obviously, in order to put VC firms on notice. There are things I don't trust YC with, but defending the interests of founders just isn't one of them. Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different.

stcredzero 9y ago
There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues. Therein lies the big disadvantage of the politics of outrage. Any movement that can't organize itself to make the tactical climb onto the moral high ground will continue to wallow in the lowland quagmires of outrage. The most unreasonable of one side will anger the most unreasonable of the other in an unending cycle of recruitment through the viral nature of outrage on social media. The "leaderless" movements of the 21st century are just this, and are just doing this. (Yes, I am seemingly obliged to repost this. I will repost this as many times as I can manage! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc ) There's nothing that involves subtlety and sophistication to understand which is going to benefit from "discussion" in a state of outrage. Racism and sexism in the 21st century are two topics which fit this. For example my "lived experience" tells me that racist micro-aggressions exist, they often coexist with forms of sexually charged transgressive psychological warfare. However, my lived experience also informs me that going around in a militant, accusatory state to combat such things is like emotional carpet bombing -- in that there is an almost complete certainty of hurting your own cause in the long term in several ways. (By causing collateral damage to innocents, for one.) So is there a point to getting upset about Y Combinator's list? No. Just about anyone has bigger fish to fry. It's also a good idea to steer clear of both such controversies and the broken individuals who might seek to exploit such controversies. If someone is upset about such a thing, it probably means there's some kind of magical thinking going on and there's a need for some introspection. (Y Combinator isn't an oracle, pg and everyone involved are just ordinary human beings, and your feelings of security about the world shouldn't depend on a world view that requires woo-woo thinking.) (tptacek -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think this is the right place to say these things.) EDIT: Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different. tl;dr -- If one doesn't think YC has their head in the right place, one shouldn't be doing business with them.