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