3 ms·

>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

by 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.
jtbigwoo 13y ago
>> Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too. The difference is that Gates doesn't do stupid things like this because Gates knows that he is a public figure. He hires people who know what they're doing and invests his time and energy in PR. Parker, Zuckerberg, and others seem to think that they can enjoy the benefits of being public figures when they want to and then turn it off when they don't. It doesn't work that way. Also, why doesn't Parker have anybody around him to tell him that building a fake ruined castle in Big Sur is not going to look good in the press? If I was him and I read this article, I'd be figuring out who had my best interests at heart and who was just hanging on for the money.

by copx 13y ago

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.

jtbigwoo 13y ago

>> Bill Gates could probably easily get away with stuff like this too. The difference is that Gates doesn't do stupid things like this because Gates knows that he is a public figure. He hires people who know what they're doing and invests his time and energy in PR. Parker, Zuckerberg, and others seem to think that they can enjoy the benefits of being public figures when they want to and then turn it off when they don't. It doesn't work that way. Also, why doesn't Parker have anybody around him to tell him that building a fake ruined castle in Big Sur is not going to look good in the press? If I was him and I read this article, I'd be figuring out who had my best interests at heart and who was just hanging on for the money.