4 ms·

That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.

by gojomo 3y ago

bumby 3y ago
First off, I don't think there's anything in the manifesto definition that constrains it to simple statements. I may disagree with the Communist Manifesto or the Unabombers manifesto, but I can acknowledge that they contain more than platitudes. Secondly, even if that were true, it's still reasonable to ask Andreessen to expound on those subtleties rather than essentially point to someone and say "what s/he said." Pointing to a list of names is not only lazy, but it completely skirts around the fact that a list that long is bound to have inconsistencies. It is completely reasonable to ask for clarification in terms of where his personal outlook lands. It's hard to understand that if someone thinks their points are relevant and important enough to be deemed a "manifesto" they would be unwilling to explain them in-depth. Even if I do "dig deeper" into his list of sources it only tells me his sources beliefs, not his own. If they can’t explain them further, it may be an indicator they aren’t very well thought out. To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.

That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.

by gojomo 3y ago

That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.

First off, I don't think there's anything in the manifesto definition that constrains it to simple statements. I may disagree with the Communist Manifesto or the Unabombers manifesto, but I can acknowledge that they contain more than platitudes. Secondly, even if that were true, it's still reasonable to ask Andreessen to expound on those subtleties rather than essentially point to someone and say "what s/he said." Pointing to a list of names is not only lazy, but it completely skirts around the fact that a list that long is bound to have inconsistencies. It is completely reasonable to ask for clarification in terms of where his personal outlook lands. It's hard to understand that if someone thinks their points are relevant and important enough to be deemed a "manifesto" they would be unwilling to explain them in-depth. Even if I do "dig deeper" into his list of sources it only tells me his sources beliefs, not his own. If they can’t explain them further, it may be an indicator they aren’t very well thought out. To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.