3 ms·

Nat Friedman who I have a ton of respect for went on a tweet spree about SF and crime rates when this happened but hasn’t tweeted anything about this revelation

Nat Friedman who I have a ton of respect for went on a tweet spree about SF and crime rates when this happened but hasn’t tweeted anything about this revelation. Not that he has to but I do see hints of bias and now I second guess my feelings about his opinions more often.

asdfman123 4y ago
[flagged]
owlglass 4y ago
Why should someone's respect for (presumably) achievements as a technologist or entrepreneur extend to opinions about events like these (or really any event outside of business/technology?)
- 0xcafefood 4y ago
  It shouldn't but it does because their renown gives them a platform. Similar phenomenon to Hollywood celebrities weighing in on political matters.
- jimsimmons 4y ago
  I never said my respect changed. Just that I don’t take his opinions as being as sincere as I presumed.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  Because any kind of significant achievement in white-collar areas presumably correlates well with intelligence which in turn presumably correlates well with the ability to understand other events better.
HopenHeyHi 4y ago
You can "see hints of bias" literally everywhere you look my friend. Also known in sane times as having a perspective. Nat said nothing more than stabbings are bad and assumed it was a violent crime, a sane reasonable assumption given the information available. What exactly is the problem? He genuinely believes violent crime is up and that this was some random hobo. I don't recall you or anybody else even theorizing this was a stabbing by somebody who knew Bob personally. You think his opinion is wrong and therefore he is "biased"? And if this turned out to be what he thought you'd say what exactly in that case? Maybe you're the one who is biased. At some point people got to stop playing this aha, gotcha games and agree on some base reality. Either violent crime is up or it is not. Some people like Nat are genuinely convinced it is based on their experience living there.
- jimsimmons 4y ago
  Well if he woke up on a random day and tweeted about it, it’d be totally fine. SF is an unsafe place and we should talk about it. But he started his train of posts in relation to this specific incident. He tapped emotions by saying things like “Bob was someone’s father” and the city was complacent etc. So when it turns out that the city was doing something and it wasn’t a crime committed by a homeless person, I feel the responsible/neutral thing would have been to inform his followers about the truth. He can still tweet about SF crime rates. But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident?
  - HopenHeyHi 4y ago
    > He tapped emotions As he had emotions. > But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident? A hypothetical somebody who is very impressionable to begin with perhaps. Nat isn't news or the source of truth. If you take the Twitter bit out of it and Nat/Bob were your neighbors these are very normal human reactions and conversations. Crime is on his mind and somebody he knew got stabbed to death. I agree that if/when he breaches the subject again he should point out that this stabbing wasn't accidental, sure, of course. I hope he does. I sense that people who disagree with his politics/conclusions hope he doesn't. That is lame. It is all too convenient and normalized these days to think of people you disagree with as slimy hypocrites with hidden agendas playing Machiavellian games. Heck, you know what, tweet at him, like a human, without the gotcha, and find out instead of assuming. I can promise you this: if it turns out you are right about this then I will say that I was wrong. :)
- nindalf 4y ago
  Then it behooves him to say “yes I was wrong”. GP was saying they trust him less because he doesn’t feel the need to publicly admit he was wrong, meaning he could find out he’s wrong about other things but not admit it. This feels straightforward to me. It’s easier to trust people who admit they’re wrong when they’re wrong.
- 4y ago
djmips 4y ago
He's human, had a home invasion in his former home in San Francisco. I'm sure that experience affects his ability to be as rational as he would be on other subjects.
- jimsimmons 4y ago
  Fair enough. Just that I don’t know about his whole life so I can’t trust his rationality about any subject going forward
- cleandreams 4y ago
  Wow. I've lived in SF since 1980 and I don't know a soul who had a home invasion robbery. I know several in Oakland.
saagarjha 4y ago
I mean there was also the time he decided to get on the grind train: https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1589051044369420288 https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1589051044369420288. Just because he did something cool elsewhere doesn’t make all his opinions good.
- benatkin 4y ago
  There was also #GitHubDropICE.

asdfman123 4y ago

[flagged]

owlglass 4y ago

Why should someone's respect for (presumably) achievements as a technologist or entrepreneur extend to opinions about events like these (or really any event outside of business/technology?)

0xcafefood 4y ago
It shouldn't but it does because their renown gives them a platform. Similar phenomenon to Hollywood celebrities weighing in on political matters.
jimsimmons 4y ago
I never said my respect changed. Just that I don’t take his opinions as being as sincere as I presumed.
lostmsu 4y ago
Because any kind of significant achievement in white-collar areas presumably correlates well with intelligence which in turn presumably correlates well with the ability to understand other events better.

HopenHeyHi 4y ago

You can "see hints of bias" literally everywhere you look my friend. Also known in sane times as having a perspective. Nat said nothing more than stabbings are bad and assumed it was a violent crime, a sane reasonable assumption given the information available. What exactly is the problem? He genuinely believes violent crime is up and that this was some random hobo. I don't recall you or anybody else even theorizing this was a stabbing by somebody who knew Bob personally. You think his opinion is wrong and therefore he is "biased"? And if this turned out to be what he thought you'd say what exactly in that case? Maybe you're the one who is biased. At some point people got to stop playing this aha, gotcha games and agree on some base reality. Either violent crime is up or it is not. Some people like Nat are genuinely convinced it is based on their experience living there.

jimsimmons 4y ago
Well if he woke up on a random day and tweeted about it, it’d be totally fine. SF is an unsafe place and we should talk about it. But he started his train of posts in relation to this specific incident. He tapped emotions by saying things like “Bob was someone’s father” and the city was complacent etc. So when it turns out that the city was doing something and it wasn’t a crime committed by a homeless person, I feel the responsible/neutral thing would have been to inform his followers about the truth. He can still tweet about SF crime rates. But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident?
- HopenHeyHi 4y ago
  > He tapped emotions As he had emotions. > But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident? A hypothetical somebody who is very impressionable to begin with perhaps. Nat isn't news or the source of truth. If you take the Twitter bit out of it and Nat/Bob were your neighbors these are very normal human reactions and conversations. Crime is on his mind and somebody he knew got stabbed to death. I agree that if/when he breaches the subject again he should point out that this stabbing wasn't accidental, sure, of course. I hope he does. I sense that people who disagree with his politics/conclusions hope he doesn't. That is lame. It is all too convenient and normalized these days to think of people you disagree with as slimy hypocrites with hidden agendas playing Machiavellian games. Heck, you know what, tweet at him, like a human, without the gotcha, and find out instead of assuming. I can promise you this: if it turns out you are right about this then I will say that I was wrong. :)
nindalf 4y ago
Then it behooves him to say “yes I was wrong”. GP was saying they trust him less because he doesn’t feel the need to publicly admit he was wrong, meaning he could find out he’s wrong about other things but not admit it. This feels straightforward to me. It’s easier to trust people who admit they’re wrong when they’re wrong.
4y ago

djmips 4y ago

He's human, had a home invasion in his former home in San Francisco. I'm sure that experience affects his ability to be as rational as he would be on other subjects.

jimsimmons 4y ago
Fair enough. Just that I don’t know about his whole life so I can’t trust his rationality about any subject going forward
cleandreams 4y ago
Wow. I've lived in SF since 1980 and I don't know a soul who had a home invasion robbery. I know several in Oakland.

saagarjha 4y ago

I mean there was also the time he decided to get on the grind train: https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1589051044369420288 https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1589051044369420288. Just because he did something cool elsewhere doesn’t make all his opinions good.

benatkin 4y ago
There was also #GitHubDropICE.