5 ms·

You're taking the author's words out of context and misrepresenting his opinion. He actually agrees with you. Here's the relevant text: The really awful thin

You're taking the author's words out of context and misrepresenting his opinion. He actually agrees with you. Here's the relevant text: The really awful thing, though, is that we live in an age where, on every level, it is considered a sin to be wrong. From advertisers to kids on the playground to the world of corporate PR to politicians, the all-too-common wisdom is to defend the indefensible. That's what Palin is doing and that is what her renfields on Wikipedia are doing, and that's sad, because as anyone remotely successful in Silicon Valley can tell you, without owning our mistakes we cannot learn from them and without learning, we cannot win.

Helianthus 15y ago
I should have been more clear: the author is conflating the ways one can be wrong in a vein I find distasteful. In Silicon Valley it is not a sin to be wrong because in being willing to be wrong you are embracing reality--the accountability is that you will suffer from your mistakes. Palin's just a loose cannon on the ship of factuality, and that shit needs to get tied down before she punches holes in Wikipedia and sinks our ability to see reality clearly. The author is saying that the types of wrongness are equal, which is clearly not so. We expect people who inform our knowledge, our leaders and government, to be devoted to the truth. Politicians must have accountability. edit: The fundamental point is that Palin _should not have said that stuff about Revere in the first place_, because being that wrong is just _depressing_.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case-- whether you are a Silicon Valley leader or a faux-politician-celebrity, if you are wrong, you should own up to it, and suffer the consequences (and, one would hope, learn the lessons). I think everybody should be devoted to the truth. Could you elaborate on what you found distasteful in the OP, because I'm not getting it.
  - Helianthus 15y ago
    Any method in which Palin could own up to being so disastrously wrong would be admitting that she was being idiotic with her knowledge of history. She just isn't going to do that, because being as wrong as she was ought to (and will, eventually) get her tossed. Being able to own up to your mistakes only works when you're trying really hard to be right. That's the difference between the two forms of being wrong; one's a consequence of trying, and the other's the sin of political drudgery. Either OP doesn't get that Palin's not trying very hard to be right so she can't realistically admit she was wrong, or he thinks that it's ok for her not to be devoted to the truth.
jbooth 15y ago
Yeah, but that's an orthogonal point. On one level, yes, we should not be afraid to be wrong, ask interesting questions, yadda yadda. On the other, someone running for President should probably know more about US history than the average 3rd grader. This isn't a question of being bold and learning from mistakes, it's an example of startling ignorance (less startling for the repetition from this particular source, I guess). I'm just flabbergasted at the mindset of the followers insisting on the wikipedia edits. If you asked them anytime from 3rd grade until last week, they would have had a different view of the facts than when you ask them this week. Palin managed to change established, historical facts for these people simply by fucking up. Subjective truth to the extreme.
miked 15y ago
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.” Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British. http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353 http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1... This is something of a reprise of the incident when Palin gave a Tea Party speech in front of a banner that read "1773". The Left jumped on it and said she was ignorant for not using a banner that said "1776", showing themselves ignorant of when the Boston Tea Party actually occurred. All of this is perhaps besides the point though. I don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President and I hope she doesn't run. But Obama wasn't elected because he had anything decent qualifications. He's a Chicago political hack who stole Dem ballots from Hillary Clinton in Texas and who (literally) couldn't get a stop sign installed in Chicago. His "qualifications" are that he's black and many on the Left enjoyed the thought of themselves voting for a "person of color", never mind that his ancestors on both sides (especially his father's side) were slaveholders.
- mbreese 15y ago
  This doesn't belong here.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  >Obama wasn't elected because he had anything decent qualifications. He's a Chicago political hack who stole Dem ballots from Hillary Clinton in Texas and who (literally) couldn't get a stop sign installed in Chicago. His "qualifications" are that he's black and many on the Left enjoyed the thought of themselves voting for a "person of color", never mind that his ancestors on both sides (especially his father's side) were slaveholders. ... The irony of you starting a paragraph with "All of this is perhaps besides the point though." and ending it with the above utter non-sequitur is pretty intense. Blatant political axe-grinding, get it the fuck out of HN.

Helianthus 15y ago

I should have been more clear: the author is conflating the ways one can be wrong in a vein I find distasteful. In Silicon Valley it is not a sin to be wrong because in being willing to be wrong you are embracing reality--the accountability is that you will suffer from your mistakes. Palin's just a loose cannon on the ship of factuality, and that shit needs to get tied down before she punches holes in Wikipedia and sinks our ability to see reality clearly. The author is saying that the types of wrongness are equal, which is clearly not so. We expect people who inform our knowledge, our leaders and government, to be devoted to the truth. Politicians must have accountability. edit: The fundamental point is that Palin _should not have said that stuff about Revere in the first place_, because being that wrong is just _depressing_.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case-- whether you are a Silicon Valley leader or a faux-politician-celebrity, if you are wrong, you should own up to it, and suffer the consequences (and, one would hope, learn the lessons). I think everybody should be devoted to the truth. Could you elaborate on what you found distasteful in the OP, because I'm not getting it.
- Helianthus 15y ago
  Any method in which Palin could own up to being so disastrously wrong would be admitting that she was being idiotic with her knowledge of history. She just isn't going to do that, because being as wrong as she was ought to (and will, eventually) get her tossed. Being able to own up to your mistakes only works when you're trying really hard to be right. That's the difference between the two forms of being wrong; one's a consequence of trying, and the other's the sin of political drudgery. Either OP doesn't get that Palin's not trying very hard to be right so she can't realistically admit she was wrong, or he thinks that it's ok for her not to be devoted to the truth.

jbooth 15y ago

Yeah, but that's an orthogonal point. On one level, yes, we should not be afraid to be wrong, ask interesting questions, yadda yadda. On the other, someone running for President should probably know more about US history than the average 3rd grader. This isn't a question of being bold and learning from mistakes, it's an example of startling ignorance (less startling for the repetition from this particular source, I guess). I'm just flabbergasted at the mindset of the followers insisting on the wikipedia edits. If you asked them anytime from 3rd grade until last week, they would have had a different view of the facts than when you ask them this week. Palin managed to change established, historical facts for these people simply by fucking up. Subjective truth to the extreme.

miked 15y ago

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.” Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British. http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353 http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1... This is something of a reprise of the incident when Palin gave a Tea Party speech in front of a banner that read "1773". The Left jumped on it and said she was ignorant for not using a banner that said "1776", showing themselves ignorant of when the Boston Tea Party actually occurred. All of this is perhaps besides the point though. I don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President and I hope she doesn't run. But Obama wasn't elected because he had anything decent qualifications. He's a Chicago political hack who stole Dem ballots from Hillary Clinton in Texas and who (literally) couldn't get a stop sign installed in Chicago. His "qualifications" are that he's black and many on the Left enjoyed the thought of themselves voting for a "person of color", never mind that his ancestors on both sides (especially his father's side) were slaveholders.

mbreese 15y ago
This doesn't belong here.
mattdeboard 15y ago
>Obama wasn't elected because he had anything decent qualifications. He's a Chicago political hack who stole Dem ballots from Hillary Clinton in Texas and who (literally) couldn't get a stop sign installed in Chicago. His "qualifications" are that he's black and many on the Left enjoyed the thought of themselves voting for a "person of color", never mind that his ancestors on both sides (especially his father's side) were slaveholders. ... The irony of you starting a paragraph with "All of this is perhaps besides the point though." and ending it with the above utter non-sequitur is pretty intense. Blatant political axe-grinding, get it the fuck out of HN.