6 ms·
> He frames the struggle in the Silicon Valley patois of contrarianism. “I’d rather do the right hard things now that I’m in,” he says, “than the wrong easy thi
by deanCommie 8y ago
> He frames the struggle in the Silicon Valley patois of contrarianism. “I’d rather do the right hard things now that I’m in,” he says, “than the wrong easy things.”
Based on his fallacious belief that he knows what is the right thing in a societal domain outside of his subject matter expertise.
Silicon Valley hubris in a nutshell.
- garmaine 8y agoBut that hubris is where progress originates from. You can't separate one from the other, unfortunately. You have to be that stubborn about things you believe you are right about, in order to prove the world wrong. (Even if it is him that is wrong in this instance.)
- patcon 8y agoRespectfully disagree. Yes, naiveté (which disruptive thinking is operationalizing in a sometimes-good way) is a positive characteristic to cultivate in society (ie. systems), to enter domains with a little bit of incredulity. But if it exists perpetually in one person on one topic in one set of observations and conditions, then they are simply a stubborn asshole.
- garmaine 8y agoI'm not talking about naiveté. I'm talking about the scientific and philosophical arrogance of following your own models regardless of societal or cultural conventions. This is quite difference from naiveté which is a sort of ignorance from inexperience. People who consistently make revolutionary progress, rather than just get lucky once, are the sorts that "know better" but don't care.
- anentropic 8y agoof course you can separate them it's not a natural law that creative, driven people also have to be petty assholes
- koolba 8y ago> You have to be that stubborn about things you believe you are right about, in order to prove the world wrong. You really don’t. It’s more than possible to believe in big things in one topic whilst not being a complete asshole in another.
- metildaa 8y agoPretty much, he is a classic self deluded captain of industry who has gotten rich off the backs of us commoners. Worse yet, he has bought his way to citizenship and has attempted to steal a public beach, blatantly breaking public access law. Edit: Holy shit he is squatting on land he has never spent a night at, and regrets the purchase of? What an insolent asshole!
- pseudolus 8y ago"He has bought his way to citizenship". Are you going to unload that charge on every foreign born entrepreneur who purchases property that's subject to a dispute? You can disagree with his position but the "bought his way to citizenship" allegation is a fairly transparent way of saying something else.
- metildaa 8y agoNo, just those that literally pay to get citizenship. Vinod didn't marry an American, but instead was awarded his citizenship based on his wealth. I'm supportive of loosening the immigration and naturalization laws, but we shouldn't allow people to bypass almost the entire process by spending money. As is, people like Pramila Jayapal and Vinod are only getting citizenship as its easily purchaseable, rather than going through the naturalization process.
- pseudolus 8y agoThere's nothing on the record that supports your contention that he was awarded his citizenship based on his wealth. He appears to have followed the tried and true path of many other Indo-Americans - he arrived as a student, worked for an American company and then decided the grass was greener on the entrepreneurial side of the fence. It's more likely than not that somewhere along his journey either he or an employer petitioned for permanent resident status, a fairly normal and non-wealth related step.
- matz1 8y agoRight or wrong is relative, to him it is right and yes he should fight for it. I like this guy, good thing he doesn't care being called asshole.
- nugget 8y agoRight or wrong is sometimes, but not always, relative. There are objective standards of morality that the majority of people subscribe to.
- matz1 8y agoWell, I can deemed whatever that "objective standards of morality that the majority of people subscribe to" to be wrong.
- nugget 8y agoYes, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want on this earth, within the bounds of what's physically possible. Of course if society disagrees with your actions then you may be fined, imprisoned, or even killed in the case of capital punishment.
- ptero 8y agoInstead of "objective standards of morality" which may or may not exist (different countries and cultures, etc.), how about using "strong preferences of the community". That way your point still stands (as I understand it), but any discussion on morals risks getting bogged down by unrelated hot topics. It is a little vague on who is part of the community and who is not, but usually a good enough definition is easy. For a beach, maybe consider those who care and live within a day trip distance.
- berberous 8y agoAnd yet every commentator here thinks they are an expert and that Vinod is wrong. Vinod, at least, has been actively involved in the litigation, has probably read the briefs, knows the issues and the laws well, etc. The commentators here (including you) that assume he is wrong and just full of hubris have likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case. That’s not to say I have a view on the underlying case. He may still be an asshole and wrong. But maybe he’s right.
- ramraj07 8y agoMaybe he is right. But as the Dude said, he's still an asshole.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y agoBeing an asshole is not illegal.
- icebraining 8y agohave likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case. And, you know, the multiple courts that have ruled against him.
- berberous 8y agoHave you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because he exercised his right to appeal? Does a contrary court decision really mean that one is wrong or acting with hubris -- how many gay rights cases have lost around the country before things shifted? Without spending more than 5 minutes looking into this (so this could be an inaccurate or unfair summary), it looks like: 1. Per Vinod's blog post (https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97 https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...), multiple courts have actually agreed with him that there is no right of public access at Martin’s Beach, finding in favor of Vinod on 7 different legal theories that were brought. 2. In Vinod's view, the plaintiffs then only succeeded based on a claim in a separate case they brought that changing the access hours to a voluntary gate constituted "development" under the Coastal Act that required a permit. If you read the law at issue and the facts of this case, I don't think Vinod's view that this was a "technicality" is totally unreasonable. 3. When he lost on the above, he appealed. Appealing a decision by a lower court that you disagree with is normal -- lower court decisions are often overturned. 4. You then have to consider why he lost the appeal. For example, the appellate court said one of his constitutional claims was not ripe, not necessarily wrong. Higher courts merely declined to hear the case.