6 ms·
How to Pretend That You Are Smart (Featuring PG)
- spectramax 6y agoTwo things: 1. Take PG like an opinion piece in the newspaper. 2. This article so vehemently tries to criticize PG for his lack of sources, but it itself does not provide sources or data to support their criticism; instead it raises more rhetorical questions. Before you go out to publicly criticize someone, make sure you’ve got your own ground covered. Otherwise, it is just a metaphorical stone fight between the two. I’m looking for a chess game, not a stone pelting contest. Perhaps with both parties dressed, suited and politely dismantling each other’s tactics with reason, logic and data. It could be a draw or it could lead to a checkmate. Both acceptable and the game concludes with a handshake. Also some low blows to SV folks - CEOs and “intellectuals”. That was really glib and poorly organized, written and put forth.
- jdmoreira 6y agoI can’t stand politics anymore but obviously Paul Grahams piece was an opinion piece. All the criticism in this article is completely unfounded and the whole article is just an attack piece as far as I can tell. Ridiculous
- himinlomax 6y agoThe author clearly has an ax to grind, and seems to be heavily invested in defending the authoritarian zeitgeist.
- BoardsOfCanada 6y agoI haven't read PG that carefully but had a bit of an idea that he could be on the pretentious side and that he seemed to hold public opinions that one is "supposed to" hold. So I started to read this article with positive "pre-judgement" I suppose, but the author's entire point was to question PG's assertions. However, the assertions seem very likely to be true to me, to the point that it is the author (Nathan J. Robinson) who has the burden of proof. So I have to agree with the comments that are already here, this is just an attack piece.