3 ms·

doesnt make their observations less credible

• wolverine876 5y ago
  I think it does: First, their response doesn't vary with the facts, suggesting it doesn't depend on the facts. Second, it does strongly match plain old megalomania and lust for power. Look at the language: "samizdat", very clever, as if they are revolutionaries. They aren't revolutionaries, they are the vested powers, the most powerful business-people in the world.
  • ashtonkem 5y ago
    Vary with what facts? You haven’t specified what facts they aren’t responding to, which makes this conversation very hard to have. Secondly, the vast majority of people I’ve seen commenting on this phenomenon have been extremely minor social commentators, who have very little to gain in terms of personal power one way or the other. Myself included; I won’t be any more or less important if the traditional sources of cultural power and influence succeed or fall. You don’t have to trust or like VCs, I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t declare a commentator to be invalid or untrustworthy because a VC really likes their book. That’s straight up guilt by association, and not terribly persuasive.
    • wolverine876 5y ago
      That seems like a response to my comment, but as if it was pasted into a different conversation that I'm unaware of, and I'm not sure what most of the parent refers to. Somehow, there is a misunderstanding here.