5 ms·

The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups acco

The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups accomplishes both of those goals. I didn't find the article interesting at all. In addition to being naked propaganda the content itself was insight free as it's just a couple of anecdotes about moderately successful people moving to a new city.

almost_usual 7y ago
>The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups accomplishes both of those goals. I definitely missed the 'attacking' portion of the article.
- ascendantlogic 7y ago
  That's because there is none. This person you're responding to is taking a story about someone doing a pretty prudent move as an attack on him or herself.
dictum 7y ago
> push the politics of its employees Defense of the status quo is ideology too. To see the information portrayed in the article as normal and good is a political position, just like seeing it as bad is a political position. But even if pro-business pragmatism weren't an ideological alignment, politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  By your logic, it's literally impossible to be non-political. Do you believe that to be the case? > politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided. I strongly disagree with this statement.
  - dictum 7y ago
    My reply should be longer and more helpful, but I'm unable to write clearly right now, so I'll be short but regrettably not nuanced: if it involves other people and shared resources, I don't think you can make it non-political. If you see politics — not being a politician or partisanship, which have different implications — as inherently bad, you are not seeing politics for what it is; you are seeing politics as some evil process, run by a cabal or by a mob, and your position as inherently logical and reasoned. This is a bad idea even if you have a good reason to believe you're right. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" are part of why this is a problem. Let me add a weird metaphor: you are saying smell is something that only comes from perfume, rotten organic matter and certain chemical products. You may not perceive the toned-down smell of things you are surrounded by, like wood, plastics or the air in your office.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      This is a good response and I see your point. I don't fully agree though. If someone is making decisions based on their finances, I think it's unhelpful to frame it as "politics" just because there may be some tax implications (the shared resources in your example). If people are moving to a lower tax state to save money, that's not a political decision in my opinion. It's a totally logical financial decision an individual is making. Now, why I say that this article is political (and unjust imo) is because that very personal and logical decision is being placed by someone else into the realm of politics.

almost_usual 7y ago

>The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups accomplishes both of those goals. I definitely missed the 'attacking' portion of the article.

ascendantlogic 7y ago
That's because there is none. This person you're responding to is taking a story about someone doing a pretty prudent move as an attack on him or herself.

dictum 7y ago

> push the politics of its employees Defense of the status quo is ideology too. To see the information portrayed in the article as normal and good is a political position, just like seeing it as bad is a political position. But even if pro-business pragmatism weren't an ideological alignment, politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided.

malvosenior 7y ago
By your logic, it's literally impossible to be non-political. Do you believe that to be the case? > politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided. I strongly disagree with this statement.
- dictum 7y ago
  My reply should be longer and more helpful, but I'm unable to write clearly right now, so I'll be short but regrettably not nuanced: if it involves other people and shared resources, I don't think you can make it non-political. If you see politics — not being a politician or partisanship, which have different implications — as inherently bad, you are not seeing politics for what it is; you are seeing politics as some evil process, run by a cabal or by a mob, and your position as inherently logical and reasoned. This is a bad idea even if you have a good reason to believe you're right. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" are part of why this is a problem. Let me add a weird metaphor: you are saying smell is something that only comes from perfume, rotten organic matter and certain chemical products. You may not perceive the toned-down smell of things you are surrounded by, like wood, plastics or the air in your office.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    This is a good response and I see your point. I don't fully agree though. If someone is making decisions based on their finances, I think it's unhelpful to frame it as "politics" just because there may be some tax implications (the shared resources in your example). If people are moving to a lower tax state to save money, that's not a political decision in my opinion. It's a totally logical financial decision an individual is making. Now, why I say that this article is political (and unjust imo) is because that very personal and logical decision is being placed by someone else into the realm of politics.