3 ms·
If you're right, then why do you have to resort to attacking the motivations of the other speaker to win? Because in this case I happen to actually know the mo
by coffeemug 13y ago
If you're right, then why do you have to resort to attacking the motivations of the other speaker to win?
Because in this case I happen to actually know the motivations of both parties. PG's motivation is to help founders. The press's motivation is to drive traffic.
- jacoblyles 13y agoI'm criticizing the people claiming that PG is xenophobic. I'm on your side on this one. I hate argument by insult - it shrinks the range of acceptable thought, thereby enstupidating the public mind. It's straight out of the 1984 playbook. Language becomes vaguer and mushier, less communicative. We can no longer tell founders that "thick foreign accents will hurt your startup", instead we must say "have good communication skills", which is a far less useful statement. It is like the substitution of "ungood" for "bad" and "plusgood" for anything more extreme than "good". Why should we talk to each other anymore, when a tiny handbook can contain all the thoughts we are allowed to express?
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoI think you overreact. He made a great point.
- coffeemug 13y agoAh, I see.