I'll freely admit I'm having a hard time articulating why this article bothers me the way it does. It is in no small part because I think Sam's muddied the water, but also because I think I'm not great at having this kind of debate. I'm not advocating against holding wrong or ignorant ideas. And you should be able to say whatever you want in a rational debate. Free speech, however, doesn't absolve you from the consequences of exercising that free speech. It does not shield you from criticism. Holding a bad idea has no consequences. Saying it out loud, like your grandpa at a gun range, does not always have consequences. But it sometimes does, and then we call it hate speech. Your grandpa can say racist things, but you can criticize his ideas. Some ideas can be hateful, or dangerous, or oppressive, or all of the above, when said or spread or empowered. Some ideas can incite violence or harassment. Those consequences cannot be ignored. Sam wants the consequences and criticisms to go away, though, because it might lead to innovation. The ends (innovation) justify the means. And Sam has quite the means. The thing I didn't touch on earlier is that he also wants to fund those people. That is about as empowering as it gets. It sends a signal that the consequences of the damage people have wrought doesn't matter. It says that the plight of minorities can be ignored if it might enable some racist alt-right doxxer to come up with an innovative idea, and that rubs me the wrong way. ---- b_b, it was a rhetorical question. I brought up slavery solely an example of a damaging, oppressive idea that I think is being put in the same bucket as 'weird startup ideas' by Sam - as if ethics doesn't matter. I mean, imagine if in the list of wacky ideas like radical life extension, he'd brought up slavery. "We have a startup that's working on radically low labor cost! They're getting a lot of flak for it though. I wish here in SF they weren't attacked for their controversial idea. Man, people are toxic."
I get that you were trying to make a rhetorical point. It's just that the rhetoric doesn't hold up. When free and honest debate was allowed (philosophic and scientific), the white supremacists lost. So your point was the opposite of what your thought it was. FWIW, I think a lot of ideas on the valley are dumb and even dangerous. That said, there's no idea that that's too dangerous to parse. There's a reason humor goes it the window in totalitarian regimes. To laugh at oneself is to make an admission that one isn't omnipotent. Free inquiry (as opposed to limitless free speech) is paramount in keeping a free society. Talking through dangerous ideas will expose them. Edit: But I agree with you that voicing your opinions carries responsibility, and that if you want to voice an opinion that people find off putting, dangerous, or immoral, that you better have thick skin. There's no such thing as consequence-free speech.
I don't think that Sam is muddying the waters anymore than they already are. These are muddy waters, they always have been and always will be. All ideas have consequences, but no debate is completely rationale. We need to be ok with that. "Hey Joe, let's hear why you think slavery is a good idea. What's your reasoning?" At the very least, Joe is going to walk away with the realization that his rationale isn't very persuasive. He'll probably also realize that his views make people doubt his moral character. He's going to have to chew on that. However, if we just say "Shut up Joe. Slavery is wrong, we all know that. Get lost, asshole." Joe is not going to have a constructive takeaway that diminishes his convictions. Joe is ignorant. Sam is ignorant. We are all ignorant. Sam isn't making the world worse by not having a moral litmus test for funding startups. Sam funds startups. That's his vocation. Being a misogynistic racist manchild didn't stop Donald Trump from getting real estate loans. It shouldn't. BTW, it's been a while since we've had a good 0-share long discussion post. :)
Right. I'm going point by point, I think that'll be better for the discussion. I meant different waters. You seem to refer to the debate around these sensitive topics - I was referring more to Sam's inability to write an essay that makes sense, his obfuscation/ confusion/conflation of a lot of ideas that he talks about. Sam, in my opinion, is at best imprecise and at worst needlessly vague. Which is what I'd call "muddying the waters", but maybe you have different associations with that idiom. (ESL, you know.) For example, it is still unclear to me what field we're playing on. On the one hand there's the reasonable debate you keep bringing up, but on the other hand, there's "all of society". That distinction does matter: Being ignorant yourself is human fallibility. An ignorant community, e.g. Silicon Valley, means we're talking about systemic problems that needs more than just talking to Joe. And I agree with your approach to personal debates, but I think that Sam is arguing for a practice that I see as a systemic issue: the empowering of hatred, either directly or indirectly. Which leads us to the meat of our disagreement: It didn't stop Trump, we know that. But shouldn't it have stopped Trump? Isn't this exactly what the whole #metoo is about? That there should be consequences for being an awful person? It hasn't been so in the past, but I see that status quo as the systemic problem. I think you see VCs as being amoral, as in lacking morality and ethics, despite the power and influence and money that they yield not just in what they say, but also in who they give thousands if not millions of dollars to. Oh, by the way, Sam just released a "clarification". I think he backpedals by trying to reduce the scope of this piece to just the "reasonable debate" playing field I mentioned.I don't think that Sam is muddying the waters anymore than they already are. These are muddy waters, they always have been and always will be.
Joe is ignorant. Sam is ignorant. We are all ignorant.
Sam isn't making the world worse by not having a moral litmus test for funding startups. Sam funds startups. That's his vocation. Being a misogynistic racist manchild didn't stop Donald Trump from getting real estate loans. It shouldn't.
Fair enough. But I disagree. I found his essay to be clear, but dealing with a complicated issue. It seems easy enough to me to understand his intent and meaning. I'm not talking about personal debate alone. I didn't intend to. I'm talking about open discussion too, blogs, radio, cocktail parties, whatever. Building a rationale for bad ideas is even more difficult in the public sphere. I strongly disagree. Trump's ideas should not have prevented him from getting loans. Criminal actions, sure, but ideas and opinions, no. I do not want to live in a world where my bank loan is subject to a measure of morality, decided by whom? We should be extremely cautious about empowering groups or institutions with the ability to penalize us outside of a legal framework. I recently pointed out the left as a subculture that is drowning in such sensitivities: I am reticent to say what #metoo is all about; I don't think I can. However, criminal acts have been tolerated or willfully ignored. That should not be the case, and I am hopeful that victims will feel increasingly empowered to report it, and that would be perpetrators will know that they will be punished. This particularly matters to me as a father. I thought we all understood what Voltaire was saying. The greater danger is the alternative. BTW, I found Sam's clarification unnecessary. It didn't change my reading of his first. Sam, in my opinion, is at best imprecise and at worst needlessly vague. Which is what I'd call "muddying the waters", but maybe you have different associations with that idiom. (ESL, you know.)
Being ignorant yourself is human fallibility. An ignorant community, e.g. Silicon Valley, means we're talking about systemic problems that needs more than just talking to Joe. And I agree with your approach to personal debates, but I think that Sam is arguing for a practice that I see as a systemic issue: the empowering of hatred, either directly or indirectly.
It didn't stop Trump, we know that. But shouldn't it have stopped Trump? Isn't this exactly what the whole #metoo is about? That there should be consequences for being an awful person? It hasn't been so in the past, but I see that status quo as the systemic problem.
I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire