3 ms·

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 gende

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.

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.