4 ms·

Ah, I see. We’re supposed to engage these ideas in the “reality” in which interlocutors don’t have motivations, incentives, perspectives, personal histories, or

Ah, I see. We’re supposed to engage these ideas in the “reality” in which interlocutors don’t have motivations, incentives, perspectives, personal histories, or attitudes toward topics that are revealed in their tone. Which reality is that again? In that reality, does this writing warrant more attention, or less? Presumably we’re reading this to understand what Marc thinks, and to isolate the stated words from their context is naivety, not wisdom. There are several “techno-optimist” (and adjacent) horses one can hitch their wagon to. My point is that everything about this screed — content, context, subtext, and omission — hints at this particular horse being pointed a bit askew.

gojomo 3y ago
> Ah, I see. We’re supposed to engage these ideas in the “reality” in which interlocutors don’t have motivations, incentives, perspectives, personal histories, or attitudes toward topics that are revealed in their tone. No, but if that's the 1st subtext into which you rush, rather than all the other ideas on offer here, much broader than any of Mr. Andreesen's life particulars, then you've chosen to play a pettier game. It's a free country. > There are several “techno-optimist” (and adjacent) horses one can hitch their wagon to. Ok, then. Who are your favorites, and in which ideas/dimensions are they offering something with better insight/appeal/non-'askew'ness than Andreesen? Or do you only nitpick?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Sorry I’m not going to write a point by point rebuttal of a 250-line slam poem. Sure: Henry George, Steven Pinker, Mustafa Suleyman off the top of my head. What makes them better is pretty simple: they sound like thinkers who are engaging with the substance of a rather complicated topic, instead of like cult leaders who are making declarations of faith. Which, it should be obvious that the only reason anyone is engaging with this (and we have to) is because of the power held by the person saying it. Also, listing people without their permission, especially posthumously, as if they’re co-signers on your manifesto is transparently intellectually dishonest. I honestly shudder to think of the calculus that would lead a serious thinker to believe that’s okay. Marc is presumably a smart guy and I’m sure he’s perfectly friendly, but this stuff is starting to veer a little Kanye if you ask me. No one is immune to their own distorted reality, so I hope he has people he trusts who can (and do) provide pushback.
  - gojomo 3y ago
    > Sorry I’m not going to write a point by point rebuttal of a 250-line slam poem. Exactly! When you… - emphasize personalities & personal biographies - cite vague feels about which people "sound like thinkers" (why?) - stretch to imply a recommended-authors list has been misrepresented as "co-signers" in some way that's vaguely not "okay" – and try to imply some unprecedented & counterproductive politeness norm that an author (even a dead author?!?) can't be cited favorably without permission - layer on empty unevaluable intensifiers & slurs presuming agreement where it doesn't exist ('cult leader', 'obvious that the only reason anyone is engaging', 'transparently intellectually dishonest', 'honestly shudder', 'veer a little Kanye', 'distorted reality') …you're taking the easier path: leaning on shallow attitudes, shifting fashions, & groupthink moreso than the actual text/ideas on offer. And those lazy appeals to stereotypes & moods are what have dominated almost all of the negative reactions to this piece. It's all Regina bluffing mean-girl dominance via tone & slur, without reasoning: "Pmarca, stop trying to make tech-optimism happen. It's not going to happen." Well, that kind of social flocking & mocking works in some places, for a while – until it doesn't.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Maybe you missed my original point: I agree with the argument for the most part. My position has been validated in actual reality. The mainstream reporting -- that is, the reporting that the people who need convincing actually read -- has not been positive. I would bet this has pushed far, far more people away from techno-optimism than towards it. If you were a pessimist already, this confirms and amplifies all of your fears. If you were neutral, well it looks like the pessimists were right: the big tech people are truly off the rails. > And those lazy appeals to stereotypes & moods are what have dominated almost all of the negative reactions to this piece Right! And aren't most reactions outside of HN negative? Could it be that humans actually don't interpret words on the page as completely isolated from the actual context in which they're stated, who stated them, and how they're stated? Could it be that "the techno-optimists" need to convince humans of things? And no, the inclusion of context and tone in an argument is not some recent cultural wokeism phenomenon. Just Kagi the article and see the response. I struggle to see how this advances the cause, regardless of how long you want to argue with me here on HN about overlooking the context/subtext/pretext.

gojomo 3y ago

> Ah, I see. We’re supposed to engage these ideas in the “reality” in which interlocutors don’t have motivations, incentives, perspectives, personal histories, or attitudes toward topics that are revealed in their tone. No, but if that's the 1st subtext into which you rush, rather than all the other ideas on offer here, much broader than any of Mr. Andreesen's life particulars, then you've chosen to play a pettier game. It's a free country. > There are several “techno-optimist” (and adjacent) horses one can hitch their wagon to. Ok, then. Who are your favorites, and in which ideas/dimensions are they offering something with better insight/appeal/non-'askew'ness than Andreesen? Or do you only nitpick?

ethanbond 3y ago
Sorry I’m not going to write a point by point rebuttal of a 250-line slam poem. Sure: Henry George, Steven Pinker, Mustafa Suleyman off the top of my head. What makes them better is pretty simple: they sound like thinkers who are engaging with the substance of a rather complicated topic, instead of like cult leaders who are making declarations of faith. Which, it should be obvious that the only reason anyone is engaging with this (and we have to) is because of the power held by the person saying it. Also, listing people without their permission, especially posthumously, as if they’re co-signers on your manifesto is transparently intellectually dishonest. I honestly shudder to think of the calculus that would lead a serious thinker to believe that’s okay. Marc is presumably a smart guy and I’m sure he’s perfectly friendly, but this stuff is starting to veer a little Kanye if you ask me. No one is immune to their own distorted reality, so I hope he has people he trusts who can (and do) provide pushback.
- gojomo 3y ago
  > Sorry I’m not going to write a point by point rebuttal of a 250-line slam poem. Exactly! When you… - emphasize personalities & personal biographies - cite vague feels about which people "sound like thinkers" (why?) - stretch to imply a recommended-authors list has been misrepresented as "co-signers" in some way that's vaguely not "okay" – and try to imply some unprecedented & counterproductive politeness norm that an author (even a dead author?!?) can't be cited favorably without permission - layer on empty unevaluable intensifiers & slurs presuming agreement where it doesn't exist ('cult leader', 'obvious that the only reason anyone is engaging', 'transparently intellectually dishonest', 'honestly shudder', 'veer a little Kanye', 'distorted reality') …you're taking the easier path: leaning on shallow attitudes, shifting fashions, & groupthink moreso than the actual text/ideas on offer. And those lazy appeals to stereotypes & moods are what have dominated almost all of the negative reactions to this piece. It's all Regina bluffing mean-girl dominance via tone & slur, without reasoning: "Pmarca, stop trying to make tech-optimism happen. It's not going to happen." Well, that kind of social flocking & mocking works in some places, for a while – until it doesn't.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Maybe you missed my original point: I agree with the argument for the most part. My position has been validated in actual reality. The mainstream reporting -- that is, the reporting that the people who need convincing actually read -- has not been positive. I would bet this has pushed far, far more people away from techno-optimism than towards it. If you were a pessimist already, this confirms and amplifies all of your fears. If you were neutral, well it looks like the pessimists were right: the big tech people are truly off the rails. > And those lazy appeals to stereotypes & moods are what have dominated almost all of the negative reactions to this piece Right! And aren't most reactions outside of HN negative? Could it be that humans actually don't interpret words on the page as completely isolated from the actual context in which they're stated, who stated them, and how they're stated? Could it be that "the techno-optimists" need to convince humans of things? And no, the inclusion of context and tone in an argument is not some recent cultural wokeism phenomenon. Just Kagi the article and see the response. I struggle to see how this advances the cause, regardless of how long you want to argue with me here on HN about overlooking the context/subtext/pretext.