3 ms·

That first sentence is mind-reading. It demonstrates nothing but your own ideology and imagination. So, nobody in the subthread has demonstrated that the Lend

That first sentence is mind-reading. It demonstrates nothing but your own ideology and imagination. So, nobody in the subthread has demonstrated that the LendUp founders or YC were guilty of any wrongdoing or malicious intent in 2011-12. All we have is conjecture based on people’s previously held feelings on YC and Silicon Valley. Now, where I am it’s Christmas Eve, which I’m off to enjoy. Best wishes to you.

emodendroket 5y ago
But your original notion was that "Occam's razor" simply proved that my suggestion was far less likely than yours; now you've shifted the goalposts to a standard that's impossible to meet. Anyway, I suppose I will take "I'm too busy having a great life to continue this discussion" as an improvement over "Ah, you are too slow to realize that you've actually agreed with everything I said" when I did nothing of the sort.
- tomhoward 5y ago
  There’s a strong theme here of assuming the worst possible motivations in people and responding to the worst interpretations of people’s words and actions; first in the case of the company’s founders, which is my main point of contention with your position, but then also in response to my comments, which is not just bad-faith debating but a breach of the HN guidelines. I note that twice in the above comment, you’ve put statements in quotes as if they were things I wrote when I clearly wrote nothing of the sort. If you can’t engage in a discussion by simply addressing things that were actually written, it’s time to stop commenting. My comment about it being Christmas Eve was a way of noting the fact that it’s a time when most of us who are in parts of the world that celebrate Christmas probably have better and kinder things to do than perpetuate arguments like this. As for your apparently-continuing claim that Occam’s razor supports your argument: your central claim seems to rely on the assumption that most company founders are dishonest in their stated intentions to do right by customers, and that we should assume that founders are lying when they claim that. If I’m wrong that that’s your position, you’re welcome to clarify, but please do so without further ad hominem attacks. If it is your position, OK, but I profoundly disagree, and I point out that that it’s not the kind of uncontroversial, accepted fact that puts your argument on solid ground. But sure, you’re welcome to believe it. For what it’s worth, my own position comes from a belief, and at least 10 years of looking very closely at the phenomenon, that most people are essentially good and well-intentioned, and when they do wrong it’s not just that they’re inherently dishonest or evil, it’s due to reasons that are important to understand, if nothing else so we can avoid getting into situations where we’d end up doing those kinds of wrong thing ourselves. This is why I push back against scapegoating rage fests when I see them on HN; only if we’re willing understand and dispassionately reflect on how and why people do wrong can we expect people, including ourselves to do good.

emodendroket 5y ago

But your original notion was that "Occam's razor" simply proved that my suggestion was far less likely than yours; now you've shifted the goalposts to a standard that's impossible to meet. Anyway, I suppose I will take "I'm too busy having a great life to continue this discussion" as an improvement over "Ah, you are too slow to realize that you've actually agreed with everything I said" when I did nothing of the sort.

tomhoward 5y ago
There’s a strong theme here of assuming the worst possible motivations in people and responding to the worst interpretations of people’s words and actions; first in the case of the company’s founders, which is my main point of contention with your position, but then also in response to my comments, which is not just bad-faith debating but a breach of the HN guidelines. I note that twice in the above comment, you’ve put statements in quotes as if they were things I wrote when I clearly wrote nothing of the sort. If you can’t engage in a discussion by simply addressing things that were actually written, it’s time to stop commenting. My comment about it being Christmas Eve was a way of noting the fact that it’s a time when most of us who are in parts of the world that celebrate Christmas probably have better and kinder things to do than perpetuate arguments like this. As for your apparently-continuing claim that Occam’s razor supports your argument: your central claim seems to rely on the assumption that most company founders are dishonest in their stated intentions to do right by customers, and that we should assume that founders are lying when they claim that. If I’m wrong that that’s your position, you’re welcome to clarify, but please do so without further ad hominem attacks. If it is your position, OK, but I profoundly disagree, and I point out that that it’s not the kind of uncontroversial, accepted fact that puts your argument on solid ground. But sure, you’re welcome to believe it. For what it’s worth, my own position comes from a belief, and at least 10 years of looking very closely at the phenomenon, that most people are essentially good and well-intentioned, and when they do wrong it’s not just that they’re inherently dishonest or evil, it’s due to reasons that are important to understand, if nothing else so we can avoid getting into situations where we’d end up doing those kinds of wrong thing ourselves. This is why I push back against scapegoating rage fests when I see them on HN; only if we’re willing understand and dispassionately reflect on how and why people do wrong can we expect people, including ourselves to do good.