6 ms·

I'm not making personal attacks. I'm describing a common motivation for high-profile funding decisions that are career-altering for a number of people. My inte

I'm not making personal attacks. I'm describing a common motivation for high-profile funding decisions that are career-altering for a number of people. My intention is not to attack but to defend what is left of a besieged and humiliated profession. I am fighting to defend the integrity of the true technologist against the charlatans, usurpers, and general bad actors.

Estragon 11y ago
> I'm not making personal attacks Speculating about "some kind of creepy mancrush" is definitely personal and quite hostile. The rest of your post is just an irrelevant diatribe, though.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  Not wanting to flame here, just curious (I have asked a number of times on HN and trying to learn); I'm not from the US and 'some kind of creepy mancrush' would definitely not be considered in any way 'hostile' around here; I wouldn't know of anyone in my circle in any context who would take that personal either. It does there? Seems people have way longer toes and are very prudish in silicon valley; yes I know that's a generalisation but it interests me because I have seen this so often on HN while I rarely see it in other places which are more diverse in their audience.
  - Snesker 11y ago
    The strange assertions aside, calling someone creepy (and meaning it) is hostile. The individual used this to mean the relationship between the two men was disgusting. Saying you think someone is disgusting, with as much intent and conviction as was applied here isn't like a joke, it's a serious opinion. I don't know how to express this. It wasn't a joke, what this user posted. If someone posted a long description of how they inanely perceived your life and your association with your colleagues and made true-looking allegations of 'creepy' non-sexual sexual relations I wonder if you wouldn't be offended and would want to clear up the misunderstanding.
  - Estragon 11y ago
    Not from the US either, but I've lived here a long time. I don't think the connotations are specific to the US, though. If someone calls your behavior/characteristics creepy here, it's a very bad sign. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Creepy http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Creepy
    - tluyben2 11y ago
      I guess the over usage might have cut down the connotation? It just doesn't 'feel' like anything that bad... For instance at parties or gatherings if there is some dude standing in a corner looking around girls call him creepy a lot; I don't really think that's a 'very bad sign'. Just a bit of weirdo... Also people call other people who go to gothic dress ups creepy; I think they would consider that a compliment in fact. But again, sounds rather that the over usage makes it less bad sounding, at least outside the US maybe. I still do think it's the US though, mostly because it's so outspoken there with that weird beeping away of 'curse words', saying 'oh my gosh' and making describing some rambling dude his opinion as hostile. Hostile to me has a very different connotation than being called creepy even if it's very sincerely meant.
dang 11y ago
> I'm not making personal attacks. Yes, you are. You're naming persons and attacking them without the least grounds for doing so (and in a particularly puerile way). That's not ok here. There's another problem: the over-the-top diatribes you routinely post to HN. The grandiosity of their claims is matched only by their lack of evidence. That takes the signal/noise ratio past dismal. Everybody lapses sometimes. We don't moderate accounts for that. But bringing a megaphone to every street corner and blasting the community with apocalyptic rhetoric is incompatible with substantive, civil discussion, which is what this site is for. Worse, the content of this rhetoric seems to be imaginary. It sounds authoritative, but on a closer look, there's simply nothing backing it up. Your technical comments are fine, as are most of your miscellaneous comments, so you obviously know how to use this site well. But these demagogic comments are, in aggregate, an abuse of HN. When you have evidence for the claims you're making, please say what it is from now on. When you don't, then please make different claims for which you do. Factual comments are ok, of course, as are statements of personal experience.
- pen2l 11y ago
  Not to defend his recent over-the-top diatribes, but I think his recent escalation of shouting is due to him feeling wronged by HN moderation. I mean, he literally said in a comment sometime ago that the HN comment rankban only made him more obstinate in letting everyone know about his frustrations with all that's wrong with "VC-istan".
- michaelochurch 11y ago
  I am defending the honor of technology, of makers, of people who believe the world can be improved through positive-sum progress rather than continuing the negative-sum squabbling that often dominates human history, and that is all that is left if bad leaders are chosen. I am fighting because there is a good side and a bad side and I want the good side to win. The decision to produce Evan Spiegel, to fund him and make his career and pull strings to make his startup succeed and give him press exposure, was a fuck-you to all the people who've spent years and decades in technology working hard and actually trying to build things worth caring about. There is a cultural war going on between the future and the past. Evan Spiegel was produced (and he is a product, not an entrepreneur) because of his rich daddy; he is a product of past, much like a tyrannosaur's forearms. But when the past blocks the future, when resources are being diverted away from progress to pay tribute to a set of entrenched players who deliver no present or future value, it's time to speak up and encourage the fight. The problem won't go extinct if we don't throw a meteor or few its way. When people fund and support the careers of unqualified psychopaths, generating bad companies with horrible cultures, we can let it go or we can fight. One way to fight is with public ridicule. Attempting to discover peoples' motivations, when they act in bad faith, should not be out of consideration. When the suppositions are reasonable, as they were in my case, it is a valid tactic of discourse. I never claimed with certainty that there was any specific type of relationship between these two people. I merely pointed to the most likely possibility given the information in the OP. It should be clear that I was, in fact, making a claim of suspicion (justified by what was in the OP) rather than certainty. This war is bigger than the two of them, and it really doesn't matter what type of motivations the main actors have. It matters what people do. When people are working for the bad side, does it really matter why? Perhaps I should apologize, not because I may have been wrong (and I thought the admission of suspicion rather than certainty was clear) but because I brought forth a divisive topic that threatens to distract us from the real issues. I do not always fight perfectly, but you must admit that I do fight. The desire to defend what is good and oppose what is bad is one that I hold strongly, and I do not believe that I should be ashamed of it.

Estragon 11y ago

> I'm not making personal attacks Speculating about "some kind of creepy mancrush" is definitely personal and quite hostile. The rest of your post is just an irrelevant diatribe, though.

tluyben2 11y ago
Not wanting to flame here, just curious (I have asked a number of times on HN and trying to learn); I'm not from the US and 'some kind of creepy mancrush' would definitely not be considered in any way 'hostile' around here; I wouldn't know of anyone in my circle in any context who would take that personal either. It does there? Seems people have way longer toes and are very prudish in silicon valley; yes I know that's a generalisation but it interests me because I have seen this so often on HN while I rarely see it in other places which are more diverse in their audience.
- Snesker 11y ago
  The strange assertions aside, calling someone creepy (and meaning it) is hostile. The individual used this to mean the relationship between the two men was disgusting. Saying you think someone is disgusting, with as much intent and conviction as was applied here isn't like a joke, it's a serious opinion. I don't know how to express this. It wasn't a joke, what this user posted. If someone posted a long description of how they inanely perceived your life and your association with your colleagues and made true-looking allegations of 'creepy' non-sexual sexual relations I wonder if you wouldn't be offended and would want to clear up the misunderstanding.
- Estragon 11y ago
  Not from the US either, but I've lived here a long time. I don't think the connotations are specific to the US, though. If someone calls your behavior/characteristics creepy here, it's a very bad sign. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Creepy http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Creepy
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    I guess the over usage might have cut down the connotation? It just doesn't 'feel' like anything that bad... For instance at parties or gatherings if there is some dude standing in a corner looking around girls call him creepy a lot; I don't really think that's a 'very bad sign'. Just a bit of weirdo... Also people call other people who go to gothic dress ups creepy; I think they would consider that a compliment in fact. But again, sounds rather that the over usage makes it less bad sounding, at least outside the US maybe. I still do think it's the US though, mostly because it's so outspoken there with that weird beeping away of 'curse words', saying 'oh my gosh' and making describing some rambling dude his opinion as hostile. Hostile to me has a very different connotation than being called creepy even if it's very sincerely meant.

dang 11y ago

> I'm not making personal attacks. Yes, you are. You're naming persons and attacking them without the least grounds for doing so (and in a particularly puerile way). That's not ok here. There's another problem: the over-the-top diatribes you routinely post to HN. The grandiosity of their claims is matched only by their lack of evidence. That takes the signal/noise ratio past dismal. Everybody lapses sometimes. We don't moderate accounts for that. But bringing a megaphone to every street corner and blasting the community with apocalyptic rhetoric is incompatible with substantive, civil discussion, which is what this site is for. Worse, the content of this rhetoric seems to be imaginary. It sounds authoritative, but on a closer look, there's simply nothing backing it up. Your technical comments are fine, as are most of your miscellaneous comments, so you obviously know how to use this site well. But these demagogic comments are, in aggregate, an abuse of HN. When you have evidence for the claims you're making, please say what it is from now on. When you don't, then please make different claims for which you do. Factual comments are ok, of course, as are statements of personal experience.

pen2l 11y ago
Not to defend his recent over-the-top diatribes, but I think his recent escalation of shouting is due to him feeling wronged by HN moderation. I mean, he literally said in a comment sometime ago that the HN comment rankban only made him more obstinate in letting everyone know about his frustrations with all that's wrong with "VC-istan".
michaelochurch 11y ago
I am defending the honor of technology, of makers, of people who believe the world can be improved through positive-sum progress rather than continuing the negative-sum squabbling that often dominates human history, and that is all that is left if bad leaders are chosen. I am fighting because there is a good side and a bad side and I want the good side to win. The decision to produce Evan Spiegel, to fund him and make his career and pull strings to make his startup succeed and give him press exposure, was a fuck-you to all the people who've spent years and decades in technology working hard and actually trying to build things worth caring about. There is a cultural war going on between the future and the past. Evan Spiegel was produced (and he is a product, not an entrepreneur) because of his rich daddy; he is a product of past, much like a tyrannosaur's forearms. But when the past blocks the future, when resources are being diverted away from progress to pay tribute to a set of entrenched players who deliver no present or future value, it's time to speak up and encourage the fight. The problem won't go extinct if we don't throw a meteor or few its way. When people fund and support the careers of unqualified psychopaths, generating bad companies with horrible cultures, we can let it go or we can fight. One way to fight is with public ridicule. Attempting to discover peoples' motivations, when they act in bad faith, should not be out of consideration. When the suppositions are reasonable, as they were in my case, it is a valid tactic of discourse. I never claimed with certainty that there was any specific type of relationship between these two people. I merely pointed to the most likely possibility given the information in the OP. It should be clear that I was, in fact, making a claim of suspicion (justified by what was in the OP) rather than certainty. This war is bigger than the two of them, and it really doesn't matter what type of motivations the main actors have. It matters what people do. When people are working for the bad side, does it really matter why? Perhaps I should apologize, not because I may have been wrong (and I thought the admission of suspicion rather than certainty was clear) but because I brought forth a divisive topic that threatens to distract us from the real issues. I do not always fight perfectly, but you must admit that I do fight. The desire to defend what is good and oppose what is bad is one that I hold strongly, and I do not believe that I should be ashamed of it.