4 ms·

I have a really hard empathizing here, VCs in many ways represent the robber barons of the 21st century. In WeWork, the world saw a blatant attempt by VCs to d

I have a really hard empathizing here, VCs in many ways represent the robber barons of the 21st century. In WeWork, the world saw a blatant attempt by VCs to dump a severely overvalued and overhyped company into the public markets so they could cash out. In Facebook, we saw VCs fund one of the world’s largest and most successful surveillance capitalist enterprises, one that still seems to be going strong, despite the ridiculous number of scandals plaguing Zuckerberg. VCs made him invincible. We’re seeing gig economy companies find new and creatively unsavory ways to screw over their “not workers” (looking at you, GrubHub). But yeah, screwing over the middle class has to be draining work.

dang 7y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to Hacker News—not even about VCs. We're looking for curious conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kev009 7y ago
  Assume for a moment the guy is right by whatever circumstances. There are three supporting pieces of evidence and perhaps the last sentence is "charged" but I don't see how it is offensive even if wholly incorrect. How would he present the very ideas as "curious conversation"?
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    “Curious conversation” means working towards understanding, as distinct from heaping blame. In all the examples cited, there are many actors and circumstances that have brought these things about; investors, sure, but also customer demand and behavior, technological evolution, social and economic factors at micro and macro scales, and countless millennia of evolution. Angry scapegoating might be briefly cathartic but doesn’t effect actual change. A healthy, curious conversation explores all factors and yields ideas for new solutions to present day problems.
    - kev009 7y ago
      This is like a pharmaceutical company that dumped opioids on the public through legislature, perverting the medical community, advertising and reputation saying "well there are many factors and your brain has countless millennia of evolution to seek out these compounds". Sorry, I just don't buy it. People can be wrong, and in fact it is necessary for people to be able to be wrong and state their case and sometimes emotion without tonal arguments to dismiss the hardest of questions. The root of the comment, the curious part, is: are VCs somehow causing undesirable pathology that leads to their "tiredness"? The moderator happens to work for a VC. I don't think the parent of this thread makes a compelling case, but the sentiment is rooted in reality and can be used to start a useful if uncomfortable discussion. Perhaps this is not a true intellectual community and I should just leave.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        > This is like a pharmaceutical company... If there was anybody who would be motivated to scapegoat a single actor or cause for dysfunction in the medical industry it's me. I've endured debilitating health challenges, including severe pain, for almost half my life. I've had plenty of time and motivation to research and contemplate everything that's wrong with the medical system, including corrupt dealings between pharmaceutical companies, regulators, research institutions and medical practitioners. And, much like apportioning blame to VCs, there is some truth to this point of view. But it's not the whole story. At least as significant a factor is that there is a real, legitimate need for pharmaceutical opioids, and a widespread epidemic of "pain" that is little-understood by mainstream medical researchers and practitioners, which is mostly to do with the fact that physiology is extremely complex and still only partially understood. Fortunately, I've never had to turn to opioids or other pharmaceuticals to treat my pain conditions, and after many years of research and experimentation, have been able to become pain-free via natural - though unconventional - approaches. I think it would be great if other people had the access and motivation I've had to achieve good health, rather than ending up dependent on opioids or languishing in other ways. But 10+ years of thinking about it, including plenty of, yes, curious conversation, has taught me that problems in the medical system can't all be simplistically blamed on corrupt pharmaceutical companies. > tonal arguments to dismiss the hardest of questions What "hard questions" was the root commenter raising? Real "hard questions" involve honestly considering all facets of a topic, and taking on the responsibility of contributing to the formulation solutions that are practical and effective. > Perhaps this is not a true intellectual community In what way was the root comment more "intellectual" than what I'm advocating?
  - dang 7y ago
    It's simpler than this. A post that begins "I have a really hard time empathizing here" and ends with a snarky punchline is playing the flamewar game. The comment is obviously denunciatory rhetoric. There are lots of other places for that on the internet; on this site we're trying to avoid it. We can't have both the flamewar game and the curious conversation game. That's not a moral observation, it's an empirical one: those roads lead to very different places. Since HN exists for one and not the other, it's a moderation issue.

dang 7y ago

Please don't post in the flamewar style to Hacker News—not even about VCs. We're looking for curious conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kev009 7y ago
Assume for a moment the guy is right by whatever circumstances. There are three supporting pieces of evidence and perhaps the last sentence is "charged" but I don't see how it is offensive even if wholly incorrect. How would he present the very ideas as "curious conversation"?
- tomhoward 7y ago
  “Curious conversation” means working towards understanding, as distinct from heaping blame. In all the examples cited, there are many actors and circumstances that have brought these things about; investors, sure, but also customer demand and behavior, technological evolution, social and economic factors at micro and macro scales, and countless millennia of evolution. Angry scapegoating might be briefly cathartic but doesn’t effect actual change. A healthy, curious conversation explores all factors and yields ideas for new solutions to present day problems.
  - kev009 7y ago
    This is like a pharmaceutical company that dumped opioids on the public through legislature, perverting the medical community, advertising and reputation saying "well there are many factors and your brain has countless millennia of evolution to seek out these compounds". Sorry, I just don't buy it. People can be wrong, and in fact it is necessary for people to be able to be wrong and state their case and sometimes emotion without tonal arguments to dismiss the hardest of questions. The root of the comment, the curious part, is: are VCs somehow causing undesirable pathology that leads to their "tiredness"? The moderator happens to work for a VC. I don't think the parent of this thread makes a compelling case, but the sentiment is rooted in reality and can be used to start a useful if uncomfortable discussion. Perhaps this is not a true intellectual community and I should just leave.
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      > This is like a pharmaceutical company... If there was anybody who would be motivated to scapegoat a single actor or cause for dysfunction in the medical industry it's me. I've endured debilitating health challenges, including severe pain, for almost half my life. I've had plenty of time and motivation to research and contemplate everything that's wrong with the medical system, including corrupt dealings between pharmaceutical companies, regulators, research institutions and medical practitioners. And, much like apportioning blame to VCs, there is some truth to this point of view. But it's not the whole story. At least as significant a factor is that there is a real, legitimate need for pharmaceutical opioids, and a widespread epidemic of "pain" that is little-understood by mainstream medical researchers and practitioners, which is mostly to do with the fact that physiology is extremely complex and still only partially understood. Fortunately, I've never had to turn to opioids or other pharmaceuticals to treat my pain conditions, and after many years of research and experimentation, have been able to become pain-free via natural - though unconventional - approaches. I think it would be great if other people had the access and motivation I've had to achieve good health, rather than ending up dependent on opioids or languishing in other ways. But 10+ years of thinking about it, including plenty of, yes, curious conversation, has taught me that problems in the medical system can't all be simplistically blamed on corrupt pharmaceutical companies. > tonal arguments to dismiss the hardest of questions What "hard questions" was the root commenter raising? Real "hard questions" involve honestly considering all facets of a topic, and taking on the responsibility of contributing to the formulation solutions that are practical and effective. > Perhaps this is not a true intellectual community In what way was the root comment more "intellectual" than what I'm advocating?
- dang 7y ago
  It's simpler than this. A post that begins "I have a really hard time empathizing here" and ends with a snarky punchline is playing the flamewar game. The comment is obviously denunciatory rhetoric. There are lots of other places for that on the internet; on this site we're trying to avoid it. We can't have both the flamewar game and the curious conversation game. That's not a moral observation, it's an empirical one: those roads lead to very different places. Since HN exists for one and not the other, it's a moderation issue.