36 ms·

Jealously and ideological discord. The Zuckerbergs and Parkers are undermining the traditional American narrative of "hard work" and entrepreneurship. It seems

by copx 13y ago

Jealously and ideological discord. The Zuckerbergs and Parkers are undermining the traditional American narrative of "hard work" and entrepreneurship. It seems wrong based on that world view that a baby-faced geek in a hoodie can look down on all the traditional businessmen from his mountain of money. These new rich they did not get rich through "hard work", they just got the right idea at the right time. They did not prove themselves in a decade(s) long process of "building a business", facing countless challenges along the way, but practically got rich over night - often while having a lot of juvenile fun. And of course nobody can construct a charming "rags to riches" nonsense story here, the one Americans love so much. The current generation of silicon billionaires come from privilege, and can be billionaires shortly after completing their studies at some elite university .. or even before that. None of that is surprising. That's how modern, globalized, digital capitalism works. But it makes people uncomfortable, and yes jealous. These 20-something billionaires are simply way more offensive to the common man than the traditional industrial tycoons. Very, very few people will have the right idea at the right time. It is not something you can plan or work (hard) towards to. Also the software business is elitist by nature. In contrast, it is much easier for most to relate to the traditional American entrepreneur story, which for example begins with his first job making pizza, then his first small restaurant and ends with him being a billionaire chain restaurant tycoon decades later. It is obvious that among the capitalists there are subgroups which are seen as less deserving and sympathetic by the general public. Traditionally bankers and - it seems - for quite a few people Sean Parker-types too. Of course it is unjustified to hate people because they found a legal way to easily and quickly make a hell lot of money. But well.. humans being humans.

macspoofing 13y ago
>It seems wrong based on that world view that a baby-faced geek in a hoodie can look down on all the traditional businessmen from his mountain of money. I don't know what you mean by 'traditional businessmen', but Zuckerberg's flaunting of Wall Street conventions by wearing a hoodie was great. Seriously, fuck those guys. There's good people there, but talk about guys making insane amounts of money for work of dubious (and dubious ethical) value. And yes, Zuckerberg's billions came rather quickly, but he did create a product that is used by a billion people, and his company employs thousands of engineers. He broke no laws, didn't destroy the economy and didn't need a trillion dollars of tax payer money to be bailed out.
- copx 13y ago
  I am not interested in arguing about whether Zuckerberg, Parker etc. deserve their wealth or not. That was not my point here. I just wanted to point out what I think are the dynamics behind attack pieces like this. I dare to claim that if some popular rich people, say Hollywood stars, had done exactly the same thing there would be no coverage outside of the gossip section where the writers would only fawn over the romantic scenery. I think this is not about the actual event itself. It is about the things I mentioned earlier.
  - numbsafari 13y ago
    Or, maybe, the 2.5 million in fines actually had something to do with the actual event itself, which is shameful and disgusting. Nobody is surprised when people from Hollywood do shameful and disgusting things, because they are openly and honestly shameful and disgusting. But Silicon Valley and the SF area like to paint and market themselves as somehow better than that. So it's a "surprise" when they go and do something shameful and disgusting. They've made so much money, couldn't they have found a better way to spend it? If you want to create a magical experience, why does it have to involve destroying the environment?
    - copx 13y ago
      I did not mean that the mentioned resentment is the cause of the fines, but I think it is the cause of the coverage.
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    I disagree, sure there was some bias in the article. The fact that Parker made his money in Silicon Valley is completely besides the point. My take away is that a rich asshole* thinks the rules and laws don't apply to him. He developed an sensitive ecological area without little to no regard as to it's effects. People should be called out for these type of things. I could have done without the bias also but this was and is something worth calling people out on. *I don't personally know Parker of course so asshole may be a bit of an unfair judgement but stories like this aren't likely to make me think favorably of him.
marknutter 13y ago
I had the idea for Facebook at the same time Zuckerberg did it. Why aren't I a billionaire?
- clicks 13y ago
  You had the idea at the right time, but did you have the idea at the right place? Zuckerberg had it at Harvard. There was prestige and an aura of exclusivity associated with Facebook in the early days, which was integral to its viral growth. Don't get me wrong, I think Zuckerburg is a pretty competent player, but he clearly had a lot of things going for him and working in his favour.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    More like he had connections through his days at Harvard to people with more connections and money and hands on the levers of power. Whatever though.
- copx 13y ago
  The turning the idea into reality part was implied.
loudmax 13y ago
Other than legally undermining traditional American narratives, the Parkers illegally undermined ancient redwood trees. That was the point of the article.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- twoodfin 13y ago
  He destroyed a national park? That's not my take.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    I'd love to learn more about your background -- trail maintenance planner? Ecological impact study coordinator? Surely it's something that would allow you to make an authoritative statement about what does or does not damage a piece of protected parkland, otherwise you'd simply be making unsupported assertions on a topic you know nothing about.
    - lkozma 13y ago
      I haven't read the article or much of the discussion here, I would just like to point out that you are applying (maybe unintentionally) a fallacy called "excluded middle", frequently used in propaganda of all sorts. Between being an absolute expert of a topic and knowing nothing about it there is a whole continuum of possibilities.
      - zorpner 13y ago
        Fair point -- I was being hyperbolic. Rather than "a topic you know nothing about", it would be more accurate to say "a topic which people (namely the parties which assessed the fine) who are demonstrably qualified have already passed judgement on, and which you therefore must show specific reasons that your assessment is more accurate in order to be taken seriously".
    - phdp 13y ago
      I think he meant destroyed a national park vs destroyed a small section of a national park.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
brown9-2 13y ago
Literally not a single word in this comment addresses the substance of the article and the event in question.
potatolicious 13y ago
This doesn't jive with history. The world had the same disgust for the robber barons of the late 19th century - and those people fit your stereotype to a T. They spent decades building traditional businesses that everyone could understand, they didn't get rich overnight, and they weren't fresh-faced children. There is, perhaps (though IMO not really) a larger issue with how Americans perceive the Silicon Valley elite (or, more accurately, the self-anointed "elite") and how it ties into perceptions of success and the American Dream. But that's not what's happening here. This article is about how someone rich shit all over public property, illegally, and in a flamboyant manner. Invoking "they be jelly" is a giant cop-out. The narrative would be largely the same regardless of if they were European royalty, or a 50 year-old billionaire. This sort of behavior is unacceptable no matter which way you slice it, so let's not make excuses just because they are "one of our own" (which, let's be honest, they're actually not).
- copx 13y ago
  >This doesn't jive with history. The world had the same disgust for the robber barons of the late 19th century Actually it didn't but I really don't feel like starting a long historic discussion here.. >This article is about how someone rich shit all over public property, illegally, and in a flamboyant manner. See my other comment. If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had done the same nobody would give a damn. Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too. >This sort of behavior is unacceptable no matter which way you slice it You misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to defend Parker. I have no sympathy for such decadence in general. My point was that his decadence wasn't his actual "crime" and neither was any violation of the environment.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    > "If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had done the same nobody would give a damn. Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too." This is where we disagree. The core of the story is someone wealthy doing something against the public good in a particularly flamboyant way. The backlash would be the same regardless of who they are. It's the sheer flamboyance that's the core of the story. Larry Ellison had similar coverage when it came to being incredibly loud and obnoxious - and he's as close to a traditional industrialist as the software industry gets. > "but I really don't feel like starting a long historic discussion here.." Pardon me for saying so, but you've made some big claims and controversial statements, and your response to any refutation has been "well, I don't want to start a discussion here..." - so what do you want to do, besides drop a big, bombastic claim and walk out? [edit] I'd also like to point out that whenever stories about the shenanigans of Silicon Valley appear, there is frequently the argument made that everyone else is just jealous, or that they are sore losers. This argument has a bad smell to it (in the code smell sense of the word). I've also felt, recently at least, that this community has a nascent persecution complex, like everyone else is out to get us - usually because they're jealous, or they're luddites, or they're just evil in a laughably generic way. This particular trend I find highly annoying.
mseebach 13y ago
The existing upper classes were always uncomfortable with the newly rich. Royalty/aristocracy to merchants, the landed classes to the city-dwelling commercial professionals - and now, the intellectual elite to high-growth Internet startups. It's a travesty what Parker did in that park, but that's not what the article is about. The article is about how all the the Internet startup world are douchebags who don't know their place because they have gotten their hands on a lot of money but none of the cool reflective sense and taste that (presumably) The Atlantic and its intellectual readers possess.
- gohrt 13y ago
  It's not about being "upper class" > douchebags who don't know their place because they have gotten their hands on a lot of money but none of the cool reflective sense and taste that (presumably) The Atlantic and its intellectual readers possess. Yes, thats how rich and poor intellectual Atlantic readers feel about rich dbags, be they dbags nouveau riche or paleo riche.
JamesArgo 13y ago
Smart people get into princeton on scholarship. Really smart people tend to find success in life. Or, more precisely, people who find a lot of success tend to be really smart. It's not a conspiracy.

by copx 13y ago

macspoofing 13y ago

>It seems wrong based on that world view that a baby-faced geek in a hoodie can look down on all the traditional businessmen from his mountain of money. I don't know what you mean by 'traditional businessmen', but Zuckerberg's flaunting of Wall Street conventions by wearing a hoodie was great. Seriously, fuck those guys. There's good people there, but talk about guys making insane amounts of money for work of dubious (and dubious ethical) value. And yes, Zuckerberg's billions came rather quickly, but he did create a product that is used by a billion people, and his company employs thousands of engineers. He broke no laws, didn't destroy the economy and didn't need a trillion dollars of tax payer money to be bailed out.

copx 13y ago
I am not interested in arguing about whether Zuckerberg, Parker etc. deserve their wealth or not. That was not my point here. I just wanted to point out what I think are the dynamics behind attack pieces like this. I dare to claim that if some popular rich people, say Hollywood stars, had done exactly the same thing there would be no coverage outside of the gossip section where the writers would only fawn over the romantic scenery. I think this is not about the actual event itself. It is about the things I mentioned earlier.
- numbsafari 13y ago
  Or, maybe, the 2.5 million in fines actually had something to do with the actual event itself, which is shameful and disgusting. Nobody is surprised when people from Hollywood do shameful and disgusting things, because they are openly and honestly shameful and disgusting. But Silicon Valley and the SF area like to paint and market themselves as somehow better than that. So it's a "surprise" when they go and do something shameful and disgusting. They've made so much money, couldn't they have found a better way to spend it? If you want to create a magical experience, why does it have to involve destroying the environment?
  - copx 13y ago
    I did not mean that the mentioned resentment is the cause of the fines, but I think it is the cause of the coverage.
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  I disagree, sure there was some bias in the article. The fact that Parker made his money in Silicon Valley is completely besides the point. My take away is that a rich asshole* thinks the rules and laws don't apply to him. He developed an sensitive ecological area without little to no regard as to it's effects. People should be called out for these type of things. I could have done without the bias also but this was and is something worth calling people out on. *I don't personally know Parker of course so asshole may be a bit of an unfair judgement but stories like this aren't likely to make me think favorably of him.

marknutter 13y ago

I had the idea for Facebook at the same time Zuckerberg did it. Why aren't I a billionaire?

clicks 13y ago
You had the idea at the right time, but did you have the idea at the right place? Zuckerberg had it at Harvard. There was prestige and an aura of exclusivity associated with Facebook in the early days, which was integral to its viral growth. Don't get me wrong, I think Zuckerburg is a pretty competent player, but he clearly had a lot of things going for him and working in his favour.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  More like he had connections through his days at Harvard to people with more connections and money and hands on the levers of power. Whatever though.
copx 13y ago
The turning the idea into reality part was implied.

loudmax 13y ago

Other than legally undermining traditional American narratives, the Parkers illegally undermined ancient redwood trees. That was the point of the article.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

twoodfin 13y ago
He destroyed a national park? That's not my take.
- zorpner 13y ago
  I'd love to learn more about your background -- trail maintenance planner? Ecological impact study coordinator? Surely it's something that would allow you to make an authoritative statement about what does or does not damage a piece of protected parkland, otherwise you'd simply be making unsupported assertions on a topic you know nothing about.
  - lkozma 13y ago
    I haven't read the article or much of the discussion here, I would just like to point out that you are applying (maybe unintentionally) a fallacy called "excluded middle", frequently used in propaganda of all sorts. Between being an absolute expert of a topic and knowing nothing about it there is a whole continuum of possibilities.
    - zorpner 13y ago
      Fair point -- I was being hyperbolic. Rather than "a topic you know nothing about", it would be more accurate to say "a topic which people (namely the parties which assessed the fine) who are demonstrably qualified have already passed judgement on, and which you therefore must show specific reasons that your assessment is more accurate in order to be taken seriously".
  - phdp 13y ago
    I think he meant destroyed a national park vs destroyed a small section of a national park.
  - wavefunction 13y ago

brown9-2 13y ago

Literally not a single word in this comment addresses the substance of the article and the event in question.

potatolicious 13y ago

This doesn't jive with history. The world had the same disgust for the robber barons of the late 19th century - and those people fit your stereotype to a T. They spent decades building traditional businesses that everyone could understand, they didn't get rich overnight, and they weren't fresh-faced children. There is, perhaps (though IMO not really) a larger issue with how Americans perceive the Silicon Valley elite (or, more accurately, the self-anointed "elite") and how it ties into perceptions of success and the American Dream. But that's not what's happening here. This article is about how someone rich shit all over public property, illegally, and in a flamboyant manner. Invoking "they be jelly" is a giant cop-out. The narrative would be largely the same regardless of if they were European royalty, or a 50 year-old billionaire. This sort of behavior is unacceptable no matter which way you slice it, so let's not make excuses just because they are "one of our own" (which, let's be honest, they're actually not).

copx 13y ago
>This doesn't jive with history. The world had the same disgust for the robber barons of the late 19th century Actually it didn't but I really don't feel like starting a long historic discussion here.. >This article is about how someone rich shit all over public property, illegally, and in a flamboyant manner. See my other comment. If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had done the same nobody would give a damn. Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too. >This sort of behavior is unacceptable no matter which way you slice it You misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to defend Parker. I have no sympathy for such decadence in general. My point was that his decadence wasn't his actual "crime" and neither was any violation of the environment.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  > "If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had done the same nobody would give a damn. Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too." This is where we disagree. The core of the story is someone wealthy doing something against the public good in a particularly flamboyant way. The backlash would be the same regardless of who they are. It's the sheer flamboyance that's the core of the story. Larry Ellison had similar coverage when it came to being incredibly loud and obnoxious - and he's as close to a traditional industrialist as the software industry gets. > "but I really don't feel like starting a long historic discussion here.." Pardon me for saying so, but you've made some big claims and controversial statements, and your response to any refutation has been "well, I don't want to start a discussion here..." - so what do you want to do, besides drop a big, bombastic claim and walk out? [edit] I'd also like to point out that whenever stories about the shenanigans of Silicon Valley appear, there is frequently the argument made that everyone else is just jealous, or that they are sore losers. This argument has a bad smell to it (in the code smell sense of the word). I've also felt, recently at least, that this community has a nascent persecution complex, like everyone else is out to get us - usually because they're jealous, or they're luddites, or they're just evil in a laughably generic way. This particular trend I find highly annoying.

mseebach 13y ago

The existing upper classes were always uncomfortable with the newly rich. Royalty/aristocracy to merchants, the landed classes to the city-dwelling commercial professionals - and now, the intellectual elite to high-growth Internet startups. It's a travesty what Parker did in that park, but that's not what the article is about. The article is about how all the the Internet startup world are douchebags who don't know their place because they have gotten their hands on a lot of money but none of the cool reflective sense and taste that (presumably) The Atlantic and its intellectual readers possess.

gohrt 13y ago
It's not about being "upper class" > douchebags who don't know their place because they have gotten their hands on a lot of money but none of the cool reflective sense and taste that (presumably) The Atlantic and its intellectual readers possess. Yes, thats how rich and poor intellectual Atlantic readers feel about rich dbags, be they dbags nouveau riche or paleo riche.

JamesArgo 13y ago

Smart people get into princeton on scholarship. Really smart people tend to find success in life. Or, more precisely, people who find a lot of success tend to be really smart. It's not a conspiracy.