Everything Looks Like a Nail(wheresyoured.at)
wheresyoured.at
Everything Looks Like a Nail
https://wheresyoured.at/p/everything-looks-like-a-nail
66 comments
I mean this without being confrontational: how? I discredit his ideas by showing what he has done, who he is, what he has said before, and how the positions and things he has done before are contradictory to his positions. His wealth and status have distanced him from the problems he faces, and his privilege means that he does not have perspective. To remove his privilege from this discussion is to outright ignore the things that have informed his attitudes, decisions, and indeed the list of 'enemies' he's put in this article.
His thesis is wrong because it does not match with his actions and betrays a total ignorance of many things, all of which I laid out in the piece. It feels weird to judge me for making bold and direct statements about a piece where someone listed literal enemies!
His thesis is wrong because it does not match with his actions and betrays a total ignorance of many things, all of which I laid out in the piece. It feels weird to judge me for making bold and direct statements about a piece where someone listed literal enemies!
Greetings! With an equal helping of non-confrontational spirit:
Your focus seems to primarily be on highlighting supposed hypocrisies between the man and the ideas he espouses, and using the former in an attempt to discredit the latter. Criticizing an idea by criticizing the person who holds the idea isn't criticizing the idea at all, it's ad hominem. It's fallacious at best, and malicious at worst, and you spend the first four paragraphs of the article painting Andreessen in the ugliest light possible before touching on the content of his thoughts (which are still punctuated with bitter assertions of his being fundamentally flawed as a person, to put it politely).
Whether he speaks from 'privilege' or not is irrelevant to his ideas holding water or not; if the richest, most-obnoxious caricature of man on Earth were to say "drink plenty of water, get at least light exercise in every day, avoid toxic environments and be sure to get enough sleep to lead a healthier life," would it make it any less valid than if a homeless man said it? The former could just as easily be dismissed as speaking from a place of privilege, being in a position to be able to satisfy all of those things without worry of being stuck in a toxic work environment, living in a noisy apartment complex that prevents a healthy sleep cycle, or not having access to clean water, but that's entirely irrelevant to whether they are healthy habits to adopt or not.
Perspective is also an arbitrary qualifier to an idea's validity. If one man throws a rock at another's head, and he screams and clutches his head, both immediately become acutely aware that getting hit in the head with a rock hurts a lot. The act of not personally receiving a terrible blow to the head does not prevent that understanding. Likewise, whether or not someone is rich enough to have no worldly concerns is irrelevant to an idea being substantiated by empirical evidence and philosophical validity.
Another commenter mentioned that they'd like to see Andreessen's brain picked further on the matters he listed to see if he actually possesses a nuanced understanding of what he's saying and can rationally defend them, or if he's just chosen arguments that support pre-existing notions based on a topical understanding of them. I feel that that's what it would take to accurately assess his personal connection to the ideas as it relates to his status, if that's your aim. If critiquing the ideas themselves are your goal, it would take an evaluation of the value hierarchy of the ideas themselves for contradictions or inconsistency, probably starting by reading some of his cited authors.
Your focus seems to primarily be on highlighting supposed hypocrisies between the man and the ideas he espouses, and using the former in an attempt to discredit the latter. Criticizing an idea by criticizing the person who holds the idea isn't criticizing the idea at all, it's ad hominem. It's fallacious at best, and malicious at worst, and you spend the first four paragraphs of the article painting Andreessen in the ugliest light possible before touching on the content of his thoughts (which are still punctuated with bitter assertions of his being fundamentally flawed as a person, to put it politely).
Whether he speaks from 'privilege' or not is irrelevant to his ideas holding water or not; if the richest, most-obnoxious caricature of man on Earth were to say "drink plenty of water, get at least light exercise in every day, avoid toxic environments and be sure to get enough sleep to lead a healthier life," would it make it any less valid than if a homeless man said it? The former could just as easily be dismissed as speaking from a place of privilege, being in a position to be able to satisfy all of those things without worry of being stuck in a toxic work environment, living in a noisy apartment complex that prevents a healthy sleep cycle, or not having access to clean water, but that's entirely irrelevant to whether they are healthy habits to adopt or not.
Perspective is also an arbitrary qualifier to an idea's validity. If one man throws a rock at another's head, and he screams and clutches his head, both immediately become acutely aware that getting hit in the head with a rock hurts a lot. The act of not personally receiving a terrible blow to the head does not prevent that understanding. Likewise, whether or not someone is rich enough to have no worldly concerns is irrelevant to an idea being substantiated by empirical evidence and philosophical validity.
Another commenter mentioned that they'd like to see Andreessen's brain picked further on the matters he listed to see if he actually possesses a nuanced understanding of what he's saying and can rationally defend them, or if he's just chosen arguments that support pre-existing notions based on a topical understanding of them. I feel that that's what it would take to accurately assess his personal connection to the ideas as it relates to his status, if that's your aim. If critiquing the ideas themselves are your goal, it would take an evaluation of the value hierarchy of the ideas themselves for contradictions or inconsistency, probably starting by reading some of his cited authors.
We don't live in a theoretical universe where ideas are placed in the idea analyzer machine and a determination is spit back upon its truth value, subsequent to which, all the good ideas are placed on a shelf so we can all gaze upon them together and mutter "hrmm, those are a fine set of ideas".
Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea because the important question is not one idea in isolation, but of all the universe of ideas, why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends?
Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea because the important question is not one idea in isolation, but of all the universe of ideas, why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends?
> We don't live in a theoretical universe...
You're absolutely right, we live in an objective reality where the basis of an idea can be analyzed and tested against said reality, and not invalidated because we don't like the person who said them.
> Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. > ...why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends?
Absolutely, and Andreessen makes it clear he thinks his set of ideas would benefit the conditions of humanity as a whole, there's no ambiguity there.
> You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea...
You absolutely can, and it would be of enormous benefit to assess an idea independently of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the speaker.
You as well as the author seem to be of the mind that Andreessen's holding of these ideas are wrong based solely on the fact that he himself is wildly successful, not because of any thoughtful critique of the ideas themselves. Intellectual default isn't a virtue; either address the claims themselves, or stop pretending that conspiratorial meta-analysis is an honest addressment.
You're absolutely right, we live in an objective reality where the basis of an idea can be analyzed and tested against said reality, and not invalidated because we don't like the person who said them.
> Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. > ...why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends?
Absolutely, and Andreessen makes it clear he thinks his set of ideas would benefit the conditions of humanity as a whole, there's no ambiguity there.
> You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea...
You absolutely can, and it would be of enormous benefit to assess an idea independently of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the speaker.
You as well as the author seem to be of the mind that Andreessen's holding of these ideas are wrong based solely on the fact that he himself is wildly successful, not because of any thoughtful critique of the ideas themselves. Intellectual default isn't a virtue; either address the claims themselves, or stop pretending that conspiratorial meta-analysis is an honest addressment.
Andreessen's online personality leans heavily on rage bait/trolling, so this is a bit like saying "why would someone be mad at a troll?"
If he's actually a troll (I don't know, I don't recall hearing of Andreessen before), then responding with a hate letter addressing his claims doesn't help the author's case
I feel like that took too many words to point out that we can probably ignore the rich guy saying that everything will be great if we all just let rich guys tell us what to do.
I also feel like we as a society have a lot of hard work that needs doing, but everyone is too busy yelling at each other. There's a lot of water in the bilge, and I'd really love it if I saw someone holding a bucket.
I also feel like we as a society have a lot of hard work that needs doing, but everyone is too busy yelling at each other. There's a lot of water in the bilge, and I'd really love it if I saw someone holding a bucket.
I mean, that may be true, but...a lot of people really need that pointed out!
There's a large segment of the population—with decent representation right here on HN—that genuinely believes that if you're rich, then you must have gotten there by being smarter, or in some other way inherently superior, to the rest of us who aren't.
There's a large segment of the population—with decent representation right here on HN—that genuinely believes that if you're rich, then you must have gotten there by being smarter, or in some other way inherently superior, to the rest of us who aren't.
> There's a lot of water in the bilge, and I'd really love it if I saw someone holding a bucket.
Here's the depressing reality: there are a lot of people in the bilge with buckets, quietly bailing like mad so they don't drown. I'm not just talking IT personnel here, there are legions of under-appreciated, underpayed essential workers (more than just healthcare professionals) that keep our civilization afloat. You don't hear from them, because they are a) too busy getting shit done, and b) disenfranchised (this includes not getting time off work to vote).
The irony is you are distracted by the peacocks strutting about on deck debating whether we should even admit the bilge is filling up.
Here's the depressing reality: there are a lot of people in the bilge with buckets, quietly bailing like mad so they don't drown. I'm not just talking IT personnel here, there are legions of under-appreciated, underpayed essential workers (more than just healthcare professionals) that keep our civilization afloat. You don't hear from them, because they are a) too busy getting shit done, and b) disenfranchised (this includes not getting time off work to vote).
The irony is you are distracted by the peacocks strutting about on deck debating whether we should even admit the bilge is filling up.
I would like to know Andreessen's thoughts on "what does the state tend to do well?" or "what does the free market tend to consistently botch?"
His answer would show if he has an appropriately nuanced view of the world or is lulled into cliched thought patterns.
His answer would show if he has an appropriately nuanced view of the world or is lulled into cliched thought patterns.
His essay ends with a long list of recommended authors, labeled "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism", with the exhortation: "In lieu of detailed endnotes and citations, read the work of these people, and you too will become a Techno-Optimist."
Plenty of those authors – especially the formal economists – have written extensively on what the state does well & poorly.
Plenty of those authors – especially the formal economists – have written extensively on what the state does well & poorly.
But that doesn't imply he (Marc Andreessen) adopts their entire worldview. For example, he lists Adam Smith, but I don't know if he has a nuanced view that includes both the "Theory of Moral Sentiments" Adam Smith or just the more often cited "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith. It doesn't help me understand if he has a nuanced take or succumbs to simple confirmation bias by latching onto the bits that support a simplistic mental model.
If you review the economists, political commentators, & business experts on his list – Adam Smith, Brad DeLong, Clayton Christensen, David Friedman, David Ricardo, Dierdre McCloskey, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, George Gilder, James Burnham, Joel Mokyr, Johan Norberg, Joseph Schumpeter, Julian Simon, Ludwig von Mises, Martin Gurri, Milton Friedman, Paul Collier, Rose Wilder Lane, Thomas Sowell, Vilfredo Pareto, Virginia Postrel, William Nordhaus – I suspect you'll be able to triangulate Andreesen's views pretty well, modulo a few customizations due to uniquely modern conditions, or the inside view of an venture-capital operator.
But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer?
But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer?
>But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer?
I think I covered this in both previous comments but I’ll try to clarify further.
It’s because his 5200 words don’t appear (to me, at least) to portray a nuanced worldview. It comes across as an overly simplistic mental model of “technology, economic growth, and free markets are inherently good. Just see this list of very smart people who agree.” I would like him to elaborate further because, IMO, their real world is far too complex for a simplistic model and I’d like his insight on where he thinks that model hits limitations. Otherwise, his manifesto reads as a bunch of simple platitudes rather than a well thought out philosophy.
I think I covered this in both previous comments but I’ll try to clarify further.
It’s because his 5200 words don’t appear (to me, at least) to portray a nuanced worldview. It comes across as an overly simplistic mental model of “technology, economic growth, and free markets are inherently good. Just see this list of very smart people who agree.” I would like him to elaborate further because, IMO, their real world is far too complex for a simplistic model and I’d like his insight on where he thinks that model hits limitations. Otherwise, his manifesto reads as a bunch of simple platitudes rather than a well thought out philosophy.
That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.
First off, I don't think there's anything in the manifesto definition that constrains it to simple statements. I may disagree with the Communist Manifesto or the Unabombers manifesto, but I can acknowledge that they contain more than platitudes. Secondly, even if that were true, it's still reasonable to ask Andreessen to expound on those subtleties rather than essentially point to someone and say "what s/he said." Pointing to a list of names is not only lazy, but it completely skirts around the fact that a list that long is bound to have inconsistencies. It is completely reasonable to ask for clarification in terms of where his personal outlook lands. It's hard to understand that if someone thinks their points are relevant and important enough to be deemed a "manifesto" they would be unwilling to explain them in-depth. Even if I do "dig deeper" into his list of sources it only tells me his sources beliefs, not his own. If they can’t explain them further, it may be an indicator they aren’t very well thought out.
To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.
To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.
To summarize this essay, the thesis and most of the arguments of Marc Andreesen's manifesto are hypocritical.
The weight of evidence is against Andreessen's ilk being able to improve the world because what have they done since they got wealthy? It's funny how the garage startup kids' mantra of "lean and scrappy beats behemoth" has changed into "the behemoth shall do as it may" at the exact same rate as their wealth has grown.
At some point over the last few years it feels like the tech industry went from full embrace of "diversity & inclusion" to now some variation of championing being based/red-pilled/anti-woke.
It's at the very least starting with VCs/certain founders. Will be interesting to see how this trickles down to the company culture level.
It's at the very least starting with VCs/certain founders. Will be interesting to see how this trickles down to the company culture level.
Well it took some years for it to become obvious that D&I (funny how my Turkish keyboard turns it into D^I :) ) just does not work.
Well there's nothing much to add. This is a good piece.
It isn't anything surprising to read from Andressen, rich capitalist wants "the market" to regulate everything and claims we're being lied to (note - without any data), and we should trust him and people like him to guide society to a better place since we're here thanks to him and his predecessors in the first place. The planet is burning, wealth distribution has been on the decline for years, there's the opioid crisis, the subprime crisis, and all these things, but we should keep our faith in the market because it obviously works so well, and we're the ones who don't see the light of truth for the beauty it is.
I used to have some respect for him, mostly because of "hard things", but I guess this kind of point of view comes with the job and wealth
It isn't anything surprising to read from Andressen, rich capitalist wants "the market" to regulate everything and claims we're being lied to (note - without any data), and we should trust him and people like him to guide society to a better place since we're here thanks to him and his predecessors in the first place. The planet is burning, wealth distribution has been on the decline for years, there's the opioid crisis, the subprime crisis, and all these things, but we should keep our faith in the market because it obviously works so well, and we're the ones who don't see the light of truth for the beauty it is.
I used to have some respect for him, mostly because of "hard things", but I guess this kind of point of view comes with the job and wealth
> but I guess this kind of point of view comes with the job and wealth
I am very much convinced that a big downside to being rich is it allows your opinions to ossify. No matter where you started, how hard you worked, or how world-changing (debatable) someone's contributions were, once they get power (in any form, but especially money), it insulates one against having to change. I'm not advocating for austerity all the time, but it's painfully obvious from pretty much every "self-made man" that made it big that they are living in a bubble, full of yes-men because they fired all the people who had the temerity to say "hey, perhaps that's not quite right."
Even though I'm slightly above average in a number of markers and I've taken pains to expand my horizons and take on differing POVs, I'm still surprised (quite often!) by things I just had not thought of. And I'm not even rich, albeit I'm privileged enough to take long breaks from paying work.
I am very much convinced that a big downside to being rich is it allows your opinions to ossify. No matter where you started, how hard you worked, or how world-changing (debatable) someone's contributions were, once they get power (in any form, but especially money), it insulates one against having to change. I'm not advocating for austerity all the time, but it's painfully obvious from pretty much every "self-made man" that made it big that they are living in a bubble, full of yes-men because they fired all the people who had the temerity to say "hey, perhaps that's not quite right."
Even though I'm slightly above average in a number of markers and I've taken pains to expand my horizons and take on differing POVs, I'm still surprised (quite often!) by things I just had not thought of. And I'm not even rich, albeit I'm privileged enough to take long breaks from paying work.
I credit a lot of my worldview and politics to the fact that I have a lot of friends who are poor and/or have chronic health conditions, and that I have to contrast that with my well-paying and secure tech job and other institutional advantages.
I've been with them on the phone and in waiting rooms, seeing firsthand how they have to navigate systems (both public and private) that are set up to fail -- public benefits systems that randomly corrupt their information and require them to prove they aren't defrauding the government, mental health hospitalizations that leave them more traumatized than when they entered, abusive bosses who take advantage of their precarity, systems that would leave me as an able-bodied/able-minded person absolutely exhausted and demoralized. And most of the time, all I can do is hug them, and send them money when things break down worse than usual.
It keeps me humble, and angry, and with a real sense of survivor's guilt.
I've been with them on the phone and in waiting rooms, seeing firsthand how they have to navigate systems (both public and private) that are set up to fail -- public benefits systems that randomly corrupt their information and require them to prove they aren't defrauding the government, mental health hospitalizations that leave them more traumatized than when they entered, abusive bosses who take advantage of their precarity, systems that would leave me as an able-bodied/able-minded person absolutely exhausted and demoralized. And most of the time, all I can do is hug them, and send them money when things break down worse than usual.
It keeps me humble, and angry, and with a real sense of survivor's guilt.
I do agree that the lack of a meaningful feedback loop seems to distort the opinions of the powerful - they’re isolated and they don’t even realise it. But then do most people’s opinions not ossify as they age? I don’t know many 50+ people changing their views on very much.
I'm 66. My views have changed a lot over the last 15 years; I've become more radical. (I think you're supposed to get more conservative as you age.)
> I've become more radical.
A midlife crisis will do that to you.
A midlife crisis will do that to you.
As an older person myself, I have come to think that it's more nuanced than that. There does come an age where we've largely settled on our worldviews, but I think that age is around the late 20s/early 30s, not the 50s.
But even then, people can and do alter their opinions as they learn and experience things. It just takes more for that to happen. That's as true of a 60 year old as a 30 year old.
I think it's a natural, explicable, and even good thing.
But even then, people can and do alter their opinions as they learn and experience things. It just takes more for that to happen. That's as true of a 60 year old as a 30 year old.
I think it's a natural, explicable, and even good thing.
There is a very disturbing tendency for the wealthy and powerful to believe that they have some sort of superiority over others (after all, the argument essentially goes, if they weren't better, smarter, etc., then they wouldn't be rich and powerful).
That tendency has always been there, and the notion has always been ridiculous. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that we don't buy into that delusion as well.
That tendency has always been there, and the notion has always been ridiculous. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that we don't buy into that delusion as well.
Didn't see anything in here about andreessen's egg shaped head, I think Ed went easy on him
So... what I've learned from anime and video games is that main-characters basically fall into two buckets
"Light" characters are those that do no go gently into that good night. They are often passionate and naive.
"Dark" characters are those who understand the inevitability of entropy and also how it is a necessary power in the world (as it creates the arrow of time and thus all Stories)
Dark characters want to reduce the pain in the world by euthanizing it in some way, bringing about the inevitable instead of the vain struggle.
Light characters "win" by converting everyone they see into an ally and friend from going down the dark path by showing that the struggle itself is meaningful. This is the "anime friends unite and defeat God" trope.
Light: Naruto, Goku, Luffy, etc... Dark: Madara, Amelie (Death Stranding),etc.. Light struggling w Dark: Aang (last airbender) Dark struggling to be light: Kratos
Techno-optimists are a sort of interesting hybrid. They are often intellectually sophisticated enough to understand and bias towards a dark character but also occupy positions in society where you are obligated to be a light character that supports society.
This can feel cloying and fake and self duplicitous or it can feel manipulative and sociopathic. "Accelerate the production of entropy, for we will find a way to reverse it!"
So they are a dark character struggling to be light but not willing to give up the god-powers that come from tapping into the dark dimension.
So... basically the Ancient One from the marvel movies...
This explains the popularity of tech-spirituality. Because pure rationalism inevitably leads to the entropy-worship so there needs to be something more woo to counteract that inevitable conclusion.
"Light" characters are those that do no go gently into that good night. They are often passionate and naive.
"Dark" characters are those who understand the inevitability of entropy and also how it is a necessary power in the world (as it creates the arrow of time and thus all Stories)
Dark characters want to reduce the pain in the world by euthanizing it in some way, bringing about the inevitable instead of the vain struggle.
Light characters "win" by converting everyone they see into an ally and friend from going down the dark path by showing that the struggle itself is meaningful. This is the "anime friends unite and defeat God" trope.
Light: Naruto, Goku, Luffy, etc... Dark: Madara, Amelie (Death Stranding),etc.. Light struggling w Dark: Aang (last airbender) Dark struggling to be light: Kratos
Techno-optimists are a sort of interesting hybrid. They are often intellectually sophisticated enough to understand and bias towards a dark character but also occupy positions in society where you are obligated to be a light character that supports society.
This can feel cloying and fake and self duplicitous or it can feel manipulative and sociopathic. "Accelerate the production of entropy, for we will find a way to reverse it!"
So they are a dark character struggling to be light but not willing to give up the god-powers that come from tapping into the dark dimension.
So... basically the Ancient One from the marvel movies...
This explains the popularity of tech-spirituality. Because pure rationalism inevitably leads to the entropy-worship so there needs to be something more woo to counteract that inevitable conclusion.
techno-optimists are literally Danzo from Naruto - they have wrapped their self-serving ideas in the trappings of "protecting the many" and "innovation" and eventually admit they just wanted to be more powerful.
Unclear who Sasuke is in this case but I will think about it
Unclear who Sasuke is in this case but I will think about it
I hope you are joking.
You reminded me of Legend of the Galactic Heroes. I recently finished the original anime series and your comment pretty much described the relationship between the two protagonists (as I understand it at least). If you haven't seen it and can stomach old and kinda worn out visuals there's a really good and inspiring story there, I can't recommend it enough.
> what I've learned from anime and video games
You lost me before you even got started. Try something from the adult world.
You lost me before you even got started. Try something from the adult world.
Fiction has roots in reality.
The comment was flippant, but to be fair, all the anime in those examples is shonen, made for young boys
Not anime and videogames though. Those only have roots in the fantasies of 12-year boys.
Is this "just" a hit piece on Marc Andreessen, the person?
The man penned a manifesto. What is this manifesto if not a distillation of what Marc Andreessen, the person, thinks about the world? Why would a critique of him, as a person, be somehow off limits in response?
Thank you, that makes more sense. Personally, I was trying to figure out if there was a broader point or similar derived in the article, but after skimming it, it looks like it's a rebuttal and not much else. Thanks for giving context!
To be fair, the article seems to conflate some of his immutable traits (e.g. him being white) with what a manifesto is supposed to represent (e.g., the basic principles he values)
Attacking the author, rather than the specific words & ideas they offer, used to be recognized as the 'ad hominem' fallacy.
First, I want to point out "ad hominem" in rhetoric has an even longer history than that. The assumption that any ad hominem argument is inherently fallacious is a relatively recent phenomenon. For the orators of antiquity, the fallacies were originally just a subcategory of ad hominem arguments, some types of which were legitimate.
For something to be an actual example of ad hominem fallacy, the critic must use personal attacks on the author as a means of outright avoiding to engage with the author's arguments on their own merits. "XYZ is a domestic abuser, therefore we should not listen to XYZ on climate change." I don't see that happening here. The critic is attacking Andreessen's character and his arguments, and explaining how the two are linked.
Deflecting these sorts of arguments, which by definition necessarily involve attacks on another person's character, as "ad hominem fallacies" are themselves a different type of fallacy.
For something to be an actual example of ad hominem fallacy, the critic must use personal attacks on the author as a means of outright avoiding to engage with the author's arguments on their own merits. "XYZ is a domestic abuser, therefore we should not listen to XYZ on climate change." I don't see that happening here. The critic is attacking Andreessen's character and his arguments, and explaining how the two are linked.
Deflecting these sorts of arguments, which by definition necessarily involve attacks on another person's character, as "ad hominem fallacies" are themselves a different type of fallacy.
Zitron's response prioritizes the author's personal characteristics before the text itself, & is filled with empty disdain-words like 'sorry screed', 'ugly, spurious', 'outdated and childish', 'rotten, exploitive', 'mealy-mouthed'.
Those are applause-lines for those who already agree with Zitron. This is the bad & lazy & pandering kind of ad hominem.
Those are applause-lines for those who already agree with Zitron. This is the bad & lazy & pandering kind of ad hominem.
That is fair. I wish they'd left those out, it would have made for a stronger critique.
what would the piece look like without them exactly
I don't think it would necessarily be much different. It could just reflect the light a little differently in places. Largely I think you could just have leaned less heavily on these sorts of negative adjectives to get the mood across, because they can distract from the arguments you are trying to make. So you either need to free your arguments from these adjectives (remove them, tone them down), or you need to back up the adjectives more concretely, which would require more work.
What would that work look like? Let's just take the paragraph that starts with:
> Andreessen’s thinking is equal parts outdated and childish, ....
These are fair points to make, but you could have done a better job of tying these specific adjectives to the supporting content found in the rest of the essay. Okay, his thinking is outdated -- why? You go on later to describe how his manifesto is actually emblematic of a reactionary, versus a visionary, mindset. That gives you a solid argument for him inhabiting an outdated worldview. You just need to tie that argument to its thesis a bit more tightly. As it is, the thesis ("his thinking is outdated") is left dangling for a while without explicit anchors to your supporting arguments for it, while you go on to list other problems within that paragraph.
Likewise with "childish". Why is his thinking childish? There's probably a whole separate essay to be made about this point specifically. A reductive desire for simplicity in a complex world. Atlas Shrugged being a staple favorite of young, inexperienced men, and why that is. And so on. Again, you touch on these points, but your arguments are all spread out and overlaid on top of each other in a way that makes it easier for someone to perceive it as just a general airing of grievances.
Instead of these tightly-focused corroborated arguments, the first sentence of your paragraph concludes by saying: "...hinging heavily on the idea that the world needs more technology, and the way that we get more technology is through removing any barriers that might stop the tech industry and venture capitalists from monetizing every aspect of the modern world."
Well, okay -- but how is that childish? How is it outdated? One could argue that this sort of regulatory dismanting is actually not outdated at all. Immoral and anti-social, yes, but very much a product of our times. This is what I mean when I say that you're not linking your adjectives to your arguments. The second part of that sentence is almost orthogonal to the first part, unless we're just lumping everything together into the bucket of "things that make Marc Andreessen a shitty person".
Perhaps a more tightly focused structure would be:
"Andreessen may think that his worldview is forward-looking, but it's actually very typically reactionary. Here's what I mean. <arguments showing his similarity to other reactionary thinkers>"
Then, somewhat further, you could have a separate paragraph:
"Andreessen's manifesto often betrays an immature understanding of the true meaning behind the works that he cites. <examples>"
Which again, is effectively what you're doing, albeit in a gaussian-blurred, emotional appeal sort of way. I don't particularly mind that approach, but then again I'm not really in the audience that needs to be convinced that Marc Andreessen is a piece of shit. I'm in the choir.
For people who aren't, I think that lumping multiple negative statements together, and then only indirectly substantiating those at various places throughout the rest of the essay, isn't going to do much to convince them. I'm not saying that you should see it as your job to win those hearts and minds, but it will hold you back from doing so.
What would that work look like? Let's just take the paragraph that starts with:
> Andreessen’s thinking is equal parts outdated and childish, ....
These are fair points to make, but you could have done a better job of tying these specific adjectives to the supporting content found in the rest of the essay. Okay, his thinking is outdated -- why? You go on later to describe how his manifesto is actually emblematic of a reactionary, versus a visionary, mindset. That gives you a solid argument for him inhabiting an outdated worldview. You just need to tie that argument to its thesis a bit more tightly. As it is, the thesis ("his thinking is outdated") is left dangling for a while without explicit anchors to your supporting arguments for it, while you go on to list other problems within that paragraph.
Likewise with "childish". Why is his thinking childish? There's probably a whole separate essay to be made about this point specifically. A reductive desire for simplicity in a complex world. Atlas Shrugged being a staple favorite of young, inexperienced men, and why that is. And so on. Again, you touch on these points, but your arguments are all spread out and overlaid on top of each other in a way that makes it easier for someone to perceive it as just a general airing of grievances.
Instead of these tightly-focused corroborated arguments, the first sentence of your paragraph concludes by saying: "...hinging heavily on the idea that the world needs more technology, and the way that we get more technology is through removing any barriers that might stop the tech industry and venture capitalists from monetizing every aspect of the modern world."
Well, okay -- but how is that childish? How is it outdated? One could argue that this sort of regulatory dismanting is actually not outdated at all. Immoral and anti-social, yes, but very much a product of our times. This is what I mean when I say that you're not linking your adjectives to your arguments. The second part of that sentence is almost orthogonal to the first part, unless we're just lumping everything together into the bucket of "things that make Marc Andreessen a shitty person".
Perhaps a more tightly focused structure would be:
"Andreessen may think that his worldview is forward-looking, but it's actually very typically reactionary. Here's what I mean. <arguments showing his similarity to other reactionary thinkers>"
Then, somewhat further, you could have a separate paragraph:
"Andreessen's manifesto often betrays an immature understanding of the true meaning behind the works that he cites. <examples>"
Which again, is effectively what you're doing, albeit in a gaussian-blurred, emotional appeal sort of way. I don't particularly mind that approach, but then again I'm not really in the audience that needs to be convinced that Marc Andreessen is a piece of shit. I'm in the choir.
For people who aren't, I think that lumping multiple negative statements together, and then only indirectly substantiating those at various places throughout the rest of the essay, isn't going to do much to convince them. I'm not saying that you should see it as your job to win those hearts and minds, but it will hold you back from doing so.
[deleted]
It would be nice if someone wrote a response to Andreessen's dumb manifesto that wasn't itself even dumber, but no, apparently if someone's rich and writes something dumb no one can talk about why it's dumb because pointing at them and saying "grr, rich" overrides all.
You read this rebuttal and came away thinking the only counter argument is it is "grr, rich"?
I have no love for Andreessen. I haven’t read his manifesto, but In interviews I’ve listened to he comes off as extremely self-serving and not particularly impressive.
That being said, this piece is terrible.
That being said, this piece is terrible.
You read Andreessen's drivel and thought this reply to it was a "rebuttal" with "counter argument"s?
How can anyone read things like what Marc or this author wrote and still believe diversity is good, or any any way a strength? Hegemony is clearly superior. Rather than wasting time legislating the foundations of a society with participants who hate you, in a hegemony you can simply build.
> How can anyone read things like what Marc or this author wrote and still believe diversity is good, or any any way a strength?
Personally, it's because I see strong historical evidence that diversity is good and a diverse population is more fair, stronger and more resilient in the long term.
Personally, it's because I see strong historical evidence that diversity is good and a diverse population is more fair, stronger and more resilient in the long term.
Essentially every bloody conflict in history is caused because different people are placed too close to each other. Only the rare empires manage to buck that trend and go far away from the homeland to conquest and kill.
The counterpoint is that more contact reduces prejudice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
Very nearly all wars are caused by economic/resource considerations. Xenophobia is used to get the citizenry to go along with it, but it is not usually the root cause.
Build what, and for whom?
That's exactly the problem history proves hegemony solves, lmao. You don't have to answer that question with people who are the same as you. It is an intrinsic truth.
Like lots of other reactions, this is dominated by personal resentments/attacks on Andreesen, rather than any ideas & claims in the text.
The first tell is that it links to 2 pages about Andreesen's wealth before the essay it purports to address. Always gotta wind up that prejudicial framing before discussing anything substantive!
The next tell is that (again before mentioning the essay) it alleges another unsympathetic claim – that Andreesen "wants you to believe he’s a victim" – that isn't actually in the text.
In the 'manifesto', Andreesen never says 'I', nor refers to personal biography, nor claims individual harms/injustices, nor requests personal relief. He's speaking from a perspective larger than just him personally, and advancing a viewpoint that rejects the 'victim' role.
And so Zitron is really confessing more about himself & his particular pissy clique of agenda-driven journalists, and how he's trapped in a overpowering frame of class resentments and hierarchical-claims-of-victimization, than he's refuting Andreesen's text.
Zitron can't even see Andreesen's text, over all the extra ideological baggage & projections he's bringing.
The first tell is that it links to 2 pages about Andreesen's wealth before the essay it purports to address. Always gotta wind up that prejudicial framing before discussing anything substantive!
The next tell is that (again before mentioning the essay) it alleges another unsympathetic claim – that Andreesen "wants you to believe he’s a victim" – that isn't actually in the text.
In the 'manifesto', Andreesen never says 'I', nor refers to personal biography, nor claims individual harms/injustices, nor requests personal relief. He's speaking from a perspective larger than just him personally, and advancing a viewpoint that rejects the 'victim' role.
And so Zitron is really confessing more about himself & his particular pissy clique of agenda-driven journalists, and how he's trapped in a overpowering frame of class resentments and hierarchical-claims-of-victimization, than he's refuting Andreesen's text.
Zitron can't even see Andreesen's text, over all the extra ideological baggage & projections he's bringing.
Quick question: who do you think Andreessen means when he says "we" in the manifesto?
At first, Andreesen is strategically vague such that 'we' may refer all his readers, or even all who'd be considered members of "our civilization".
But upon starting to speak of the label teased in the title, 'Techno-Optimists', he shifts to using 'we' to describe that group, via progressive definition with each successive "we".
The shift from "potentially everybody" to "those defined by this creed" invites the reader to consider: "am I part of this 'we'?"
What other possibilities for what 'we' means do you see in the text?
But upon starting to speak of the label teased in the title, 'Techno-Optimists', he shifts to using 'we' to describe that group, via progressive definition with each successive "we".
The shift from "potentially everybody" to "those defined by this creed" invites the reader to consider: "am I part of this 'we'?"
What other possibilities for what 'we' means do you see in the text?
It's an unfocused rant pretending to be a refutation.