3 ms·
My take on it is this -- 1) The Economist piece is really a reference to a New Yorker piece. 2) The author seems to be indulging in schadenfreude / triumphali
by squozzer 13y ago
My take on it is this --
1) The Economist piece is really a reference to a New Yorker piece.
2) The author seems to be indulging in schadenfreude / triumphalism over the "new" SV strategy of engaging in politics.
It's a rather stinky bit of smugness really.
If any locale has gotten too big for its' boots, it's NYC, especially the borough that provides The New Yorker with most of its' readers. This is both fact and more importantly, a very common perception by those who live outside the five boroughs.
As far as "playing ball" politically, I'm sure the author, if asked nicely, can cite numerous instances where ball-playing has hurt both their personal interests and what they perceive to be the "national / global interest."
So to the author I would say, "Be careful in your wish-making."