3 ms·
It’s obviously diminutive and patronizing, and makes implications or assumptions about them and their families that are based on stereotypes or sparse informati
by tomhow 1y ago
It’s obviously diminutive and patronizing, and makes implications or assumptions about them and their families that are based on stereotypes or sparse information. It’s clearly against the guidelines and the guidelines aren’t discarded altogether just because a YC company is involved.
- jcgrillo 1y agodamn right it's diminutive, and why the hell not? these clowns and the idiots who fund their tomfoolery deserve it
- tomhow 1y agoWe have no idea what the realities of their lives are. We only know the basic facts of the wrongdoing that’s been reported here, which is of course fine to criticize.
- EraYaN 1y agoYC isn't that unknown and you can absolutely judge that org for funding stuff like this, you really don't need that much detail. And if you have interacted with a lot of the "founders" you know that statistically you're in the clear to judge them all too. It's a pretty weird world where a lot of dumb exists, like A LOT. The realities of their lives are frankly immaterial anyway, it's about the output (and input in case of VC money).
- ramses0 1y ago* alleged wrongdoing, if you're considering it "reporting" ;-) Thank you for your service, and welcome to the... uhhh... show!