4 ms·

It's not the trolls I care about so much as more moderate people who may have seen the fight from a distance and come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexi

by pg 13y ago

It's not the trolls I care about so much as more moderate people who may have seen the fight from a distance and come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist. Particularly women, because I want them to apply.

Helianthus 13y ago
In other words, this is a posture piece: it's about your reputation, and only about the issue at hand insomuch as it is important to give that issue its due. I mean that ('posture piece') as neutrally, perhaps, as it is possible to mean it. >come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist. And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? That it's just the tech environment, and you're on the 'right side'? Again, this is about your reputation--controlling the narrative.
- baddox 13y ago
  > And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? I don't think he could have made that any clearer.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    I suppose I was looking for double jeopardy. The nature of this kind of discussion is always going to be hyperbolic and emotionally charged, which is why gender discussions here get nuked. That's what I find so amusing about PG's foray today: PG could write the most innocuous treatise imaginable, and he'd still be getting into trouble, and deservedly so. Ask yourself: what happens after this? Is YC going to be the shining light that brings sexual equality to the Valley? Or does YC culture get to pat itself on the back for being less sexist than the other parts of tech culture and continue its general status quo? This essay doesn't heal any divide; it just stirs the pot a bit more. It's about reputation, not solutions--which is somewhat a shame, because the second half of the essay (which essentially is a restatement of PG's initial comment) is pretty thoughtful and reasonable.
    - Rylinks 13y ago
      If pg would get in trouble no matter how innocuous the essay, why should we pay any attention to whether he does?
      - Helianthus 13y ago
        Because by engaging the toxic, he's cementing his role in the toxic. Dude actually wrote: 'by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black."' Comedy gold. You just don't say stuff like that. I mean, maybe he's got some semblance of a good point in there somewhere, but you can't hear it over the kneejerk outrage. And maybe that's where I have a problem with this. PG ignores the flamewar unless by touching it he can get something he wants--the appropriate reputation amongst moderates. And he can't (and won't) get away scott free.
        theodoracharl 13y ago
        PG is now and always has been one of those ruthlessly pragmatic people. He has his mission and he sticks to it. His mission exists within an overarching framework that many of us consider horrific. His work is genuinely less horrific than that of his competitors (standard VCs) and that is one of his selling points. It's business as usual. I suppose people like you and I are more interested in understanding the relation of SV to the broad context of humanity. Which is why we always get downvoted into oblivion and have to create new accounts.
- oskarth 13y ago
  Or perhaps he want women to apply because it's good for YC, you know, business-wise. You seem to be looking at this through a lens of hate. May I ask why?
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Not hate, cynicism. Talk's cheap and tends to benefit the speaker. The rhetorical arc of the piece is public self-exoneration. I don't think you can reasonably argue otherwise. PG isn't required to give a deposition of his thoughts on the matter. He could remain silent and continue working on what's important to him. Or more interestingly, he could launch YC initiatives to get girls coding, shift resources towards some meaningful contribution, something more tangible. Possibly he's done that, and combined with aforementioned silence he might be cruising quite comfortably. Instead he writes a piece designed to keep the 'more moderate people' from thinking YC sexist, a piece that changes nothing (the flame war abounds) except public perception. See above, "working on what's important to him," with a certain wry taste.
    - derefr 13y ago
      I find that a very strange definition for cynicism. Usually cynics tend to assume that people are, more often than not, consequentialists: pursuing means for their ends. PG's ends, in this case, are his business; he wants to make more money. This piece, seen as a consequentialist act, would be a gambit played to calm a possible negative tide in feminist circles toward YC, that might have resulted in YC getting fewer (qualified!) female applicants... which would be bad for business. I think your problem might be in assuming PG cares about his personal reputation, rather than about YC's reputation. Only one of those two things will make him money. In other words: this is part of "working on what's important to him." Playing the politics of business brand-image is just as much a part of "business" as building your product, as far as profitability goes.
      - Helianthus 13y ago
        I didn't intend to particularly provide a definition for cynicism so much as deflect the idea I was writing out of hatred. >This piece, seen as a consequentialist act, would be a gambit played to calm a possible negative tide in feminist circles toward YC, that might have resulted in YC getting fewer (qualified!) female applicants... which would be bad for business. Precisely, with a possible qualifier on 'feminist circles'--moderate, maybe even conservative feminist circles. By which I mean to say, he's pointedly ignoring the feminist concerns outside of the most mainstream: even those that have a point. Which is why this isn't a conversation! There is no interchange of ideas happening here, only the inevitable flame war spawned by a HN gender topic.
- angersock 13y ago
  What are you driving at? Have some guts and stop beating about the bush.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    I dunno, I thought I was being direct. The tech sector has sexism problems, and YC, as part of that sector, is not going to be immune to them. This piece does nothing but puff up YC in an effort to distance YC from the tech sector's sexism, which will only work to a point. The target audience is the section of moderate feminists that are inherently sympathetic to YC; the concerns of those outside that layer, even the valid ones, are simply not important to PG. To reiterate: this is a posturing move, in the most neutral sense possible.
    - xixi77 13y ago
      What are these non-mainstream feminist concerns that are being ignored here?
  - nl 13y ago
    Apparently Helianthus think's PG should have both said nothing at all (eg, Because by engaging the toxic, he's cementing his role in the toxic.) and said something radical (the section of moderate feminists that are inherently sympathetic to YC; the concerns of those outside that layer, even the valid ones, are simply not important to PG) Not entirely sure what the author thinks they are achieving.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      Not both; either of those would have been more interesting and less prone to hypocrisy. Perhaps I am less critical of Paul as much as I am the crude politics of it all--thus critical of Paul by extension. (Before you think I am directly calling Paul a hypocrite, what I mean is that the toxic flame wars are, by their nature, hypocritical, and it takes care to interact with them without appearing hypocritical yourself--care that I do not think Paul managed.)
- johngalt 13y ago
  i.e. Not only is pg a witch but also a liar for not admitting it! Look we get it. You enjoy being some moral arbiter that has impossible standards so you can act like your better than everyone while accomplishing nothing.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Who's the bigger unaccomplished arbiter, the arbiter, or the arbiter arbitrating unaccomplished arbiters? :D

by pg 13y ago

Helianthus 13y ago

In other words, this is a posture piece: it's about your reputation, and only about the issue at hand insomuch as it is important to give that issue its due. I mean that ('posture piece') as neutrally, perhaps, as it is possible to mean it. >come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist. And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? That it's just the tech environment, and you're on the 'right side'? Again, this is about your reputation--controlling the narrative.

baddox 13y ago
> And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? I don't think he could have made that any clearer.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  I suppose I was looking for double jeopardy. The nature of this kind of discussion is always going to be hyperbolic and emotionally charged, which is why gender discussions here get nuked. That's what I find so amusing about PG's foray today: PG could write the most innocuous treatise imaginable, and he'd still be getting into trouble, and deservedly so. Ask yourself: what happens after this? Is YC going to be the shining light that brings sexual equality to the Valley? Or does YC culture get to pat itself on the back for being less sexist than the other parts of tech culture and continue its general status quo? This essay doesn't heal any divide; it just stirs the pot a bit more. It's about reputation, not solutions--which is somewhat a shame, because the second half of the essay (which essentially is a restatement of PG's initial comment) is pretty thoughtful and reasonable.
  - Rylinks 13y ago
    If pg would get in trouble no matter how innocuous the essay, why should we pay any attention to whether he does?
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      Because by engaging the toxic, he's cementing his role in the toxic. Dude actually wrote: 'by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black."' Comedy gold. You just don't say stuff like that. I mean, maybe he's got some semblance of a good point in there somewhere, but you can't hear it over the kneejerk outrage. And maybe that's where I have a problem with this. PG ignores the flamewar unless by touching it he can get something he wants--the appropriate reputation amongst moderates. And he can't (and won't) get away scott free.
      - theodoracharl 13y ago
        PG is now and always has been one of those ruthlessly pragmatic people. He has his mission and he sticks to it. His mission exists within an overarching framework that many of us consider horrific. His work is genuinely less horrific than that of his competitors (standard VCs) and that is one of his selling points. It's business as usual. I suppose people like you and I are more interested in understanding the relation of SV to the broad context of humanity. Which is why we always get downvoted into oblivion and have to create new accounts.
oskarth 13y ago
Or perhaps he want women to apply because it's good for YC, you know, business-wise. You seem to be looking at this through a lens of hate. May I ask why?
- Helianthus 13y ago
  Not hate, cynicism. Talk's cheap and tends to benefit the speaker. The rhetorical arc of the piece is public self-exoneration. I don't think you can reasonably argue otherwise. PG isn't required to give a deposition of his thoughts on the matter. He could remain silent and continue working on what's important to him. Or more interestingly, he could launch YC initiatives to get girls coding, shift resources towards some meaningful contribution, something more tangible. Possibly he's done that, and combined with aforementioned silence he might be cruising quite comfortably. Instead he writes a piece designed to keep the 'more moderate people' from thinking YC sexist, a piece that changes nothing (the flame war abounds) except public perception. See above, "working on what's important to him," with a certain wry taste.
  - derefr 13y ago
    I find that a very strange definition for cynicism. Usually cynics tend to assume that people are, more often than not, consequentialists: pursuing means for their ends. PG's ends, in this case, are his business; he wants to make more money. This piece, seen as a consequentialist act, would be a gambit played to calm a possible negative tide in feminist circles toward YC, that might have resulted in YC getting fewer (qualified!) female applicants... which would be bad for business. I think your problem might be in assuming PG cares about his personal reputation, rather than about YC's reputation. Only one of those two things will make him money. In other words: this is part of "working on what's important to him." Playing the politics of business brand-image is just as much a part of "business" as building your product, as far as profitability goes.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      I didn't intend to particularly provide a definition for cynicism so much as deflect the idea I was writing out of hatred. >This piece, seen as a consequentialist act, would be a gambit played to calm a possible negative tide in feminist circles toward YC, that might have resulted in YC getting fewer (qualified!) female applicants... which would be bad for business. Precisely, with a possible qualifier on 'feminist circles'--moderate, maybe even conservative feminist circles. By which I mean to say, he's pointedly ignoring the feminist concerns outside of the most mainstream: even those that have a point. Which is why this isn't a conversation! There is no interchange of ideas happening here, only the inevitable flame war spawned by a HN gender topic.
angersock 13y ago
What are you driving at? Have some guts and stop beating about the bush.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  I dunno, I thought I was being direct. The tech sector has sexism problems, and YC, as part of that sector, is not going to be immune to them. This piece does nothing but puff up YC in an effort to distance YC from the tech sector's sexism, which will only work to a point. The target audience is the section of moderate feminists that are inherently sympathetic to YC; the concerns of those outside that layer, even the valid ones, are simply not important to PG. To reiterate: this is a posturing move, in the most neutral sense possible.
  - xixi77 13y ago
    What are these non-mainstream feminist concerns that are being ignored here?
- nl 13y ago
  Apparently Helianthus think's PG should have both said nothing at all (eg, Because by engaging the toxic, he's cementing his role in the toxic.) and said something radical (the section of moderate feminists that are inherently sympathetic to YC; the concerns of those outside that layer, even the valid ones, are simply not important to PG) Not entirely sure what the author thinks they are achieving.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Not both; either of those would have been more interesting and less prone to hypocrisy. Perhaps I am less critical of Paul as much as I am the crude politics of it all--thus critical of Paul by extension. (Before you think I am directly calling Paul a hypocrite, what I mean is that the toxic flame wars are, by their nature, hypocritical, and it takes care to interact with them without appearing hypocritical yourself--care that I do not think Paul managed.)
johngalt 13y ago
i.e. Not only is pg a witch but also a liar for not admitting it! Look we get it. You enjoy being some moral arbiter that has impossible standards so you can act like your better than everyone while accomplishing nothing.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  Who's the bigger unaccomplished arbiter, the arbiter, or the arbiter arbitrating unaccomplished arbiters? :D