Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Reminder To Investors

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#221

Post by bmelton »

StandardFuture wrote: post #133
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?

>Can we have it some other time? No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.

Explaining my downvote:

The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.

I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#222

Post by StandardFuture »

facepalm wrote: post #201
StandardFuture wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this come from the fact that most "computer nerds" spend their lives (whether by choice or 'lot in life') in pure isolation (if not physically then mentally)? In other words, does this void of 'sociality' in their life lead them to completely lack sympathy, empathy, and general kindness towards others? And does our tech environment (that encourages that lifestyle) also 'justify' that this mentality is not only o…

How is falling in love with somebody (or even just being infatuated) displaying a complete lack of sympathy, empathy and general kindness towards others? Maybe you should work on your empathy...

Imposing your own personal lustful attitudes on others who do not want to share in them and then feel internally justified (usually by the fact that no one you directly know is speaking critically of such types of actions) is very much so a display of a complete lack of any regard for other people's well beings (outside of you and your 'circle').

Edit: I thought about refraining from saying this but it really should be said: your comment is so beyond idiotic that it merits nothing except pure disgust and abhorrence.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#223

Post by [deleted] »

balls187 wrote: post #198
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #155

So here's what I think it comes down to: You're an investor. You're at demo day. There's this female founder, and you think she's hot. You interact with her purely professionally, but you still feel the chemistry, and you think she does, too. You want to ask her out, because you think there might be something there. So what do you do? You resign from your role as a VC/investor. That's what it's going to cost. Then yo…

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

[deleted]

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#224

Post by balls187 »

acabrahams wrote: post #213
balls187 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

Yes. You are generalizing. Massively. There is no possible situation in which a VC I had met could ask me out without making me feel extremely uncomfortable, to put it lightly. There are lots of logical reasons for this reaction, and I will list some of them briefly. 1) Power of VC network is implicit threat to 'play nice' and go along with it, even if VC in question has no intention of being nasty in any way. 2) The…

The reasons you list are often cited reasons why managers or people in authority should not "fraternize" with subordinates. You're right, very logical reasons, and why most companies frown on that behavior.

I understand that founders want to be taken seriously, and and investor blurring the lines between professional and personal relationships can jeopardize that, but not all relationships with investors are like that, and I'd imagine not all founders would doubt themselves if approached after the fact.

I am biased, because in Seattle, the VC community isn't as threatening from a "play nice or else" perspective.

Also, I'm a sucker for romance and the boy meets girl, and live happily ever after story.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#225

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #223
balls187 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#226

Post by yummyfajitas »

DrJokepu wrote: post #217
yummyfajitas wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that this "dick move" is absent in other fields with lots of women? Specifically, do you believe doctors and lawyers ask each other out less than techies? If "shit like this" is present in every field, it's a poor explanation of why women avoid technology but no those other fields. Now if you want to rescue this hypothesis, you could point out that doctors aren't a bunch of low status nerds. But that's…

I was not making an hypothesis, I was describing how situations like this make people feel and then I described how that makes me feel. The irony is that even though you believed that you made a rational counter-argument what you really did is describing your very own feelings with a comment that is betraying your insecurities.

...it's shit like this why many women shy away from participating in technology.

That's a hypothesis, a claim about how the world works. That's the point I'm questioning.

I don't much care about your feelings, nor was I commenting on them. You can feel whatever you like. If you want to make status lowering comments ("betraying your insecurities"), have at it. I'm well aware that personal attacks and the like are one of the results of questioning the orthodoxy.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#227

Post by dfxm12 »

cousin_it wrote: post #216
wbharding wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discouraging. Folks like "Masseuse" that most need to shape up are probably least likely to have the capacity to listen. Maybe it's because having wealth melts ones brain, or maybe a certain level of sociopathy is advantageous in accumulating wealth. However the cause-and-effect works out, I struggle to imagine a person who exhibits such behaviors being fixable through sound reasoning. The battle to get scummy dudes…

IMO the biggest challenge would be making a system that will punish according to actual transgression, not according to perceived status. In reality, the slick investor type will get off the hook, but the virgin neckbeard programmer will get slammed for harassment and also for being a virgin neckbeard. Any ideas for fixing that?

I think you have to hit people in their image or their wallet. Slick investor types will have to publicly call out their peers' bad behavior. Slick investor types will have to lose out on a huge investments because they treated a pitch meeting like speed dating.

What can we do? We'll have to raise our children to be respectful of everyone, so hopefully, they become successful and they won't stand for this type of injustice.

I don't think there's a silver bullet. It's going to take time and work.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#228

Post by StandardFuture »

bmelton wrote: post #221
StandardFuture wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can we have it some other time? No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.

Explaining my downvote: The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity. I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.

The exchanging of ideas is the definition of conversation itself, it is not particular to 'scholarly discussions'. That alone completely negates your point.

However, I understand what you are trying to say. You are worried that the dismissal of conversation is a bad attitude towards progress. That is true. BUT that is not what is happening here. The premise was already set for what this conversation would be about. You should think of my rhetoric as a part of the conversation itself. Just because I weighed in as "going further accomplishes nothing", does not make that a a wrong conclusion. You could try to prove why THAT conclusion is wrong (but only in relationship to the conversation itself) instead of generalizing what I am doing as somehow "stopping all scholarly discussions".

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#229

Post by afro88 »

acabrahams wrote: post #213
balls187 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

Yes. You are generalizing. Massively. There is no possible situation in which a VC I had met could ask me out without making me feel extremely uncomfortable, to put it lightly. There are lots of logical reasons for this reaction, and I will list some of them briefly. 1) Power of VC network is implicit threat to 'play nice' and go along with it, even if VC in question has no intention of being nasty in any way. 2) The…

I think balls187 left off one important point as a VC: make it clear that you aren't interested in investing in their company, but want to go for coffee/lunch/whatever on a purely personal basis.

As a founder, the discomfort comes from not knowing the VC's intentions and how you are supposed to act with regards to your company. The VC needs to draw a clear line (ruling out investment and all other professional involvement) that takes a lot of that discomfort out of the situation, and removes the mixing of business and pleasure.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#230

Post by bmelton »

StandardFuture wrote: post #228
bmelton wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explaining my downvote: The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity. I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.

The exchanging of ideas is the definition of conversation itself, it is not particular to 'scholarly discussions'. That alone completely negates your point. However, I understand what you are trying to say. You are worried that the dismissal of conversation is a bad attitude towards progress. That is true. BUT that is not what is happening here. The premise was already set for what this conversation would be about. Y…

Fine. Let's kill it all with semantics then.

I'll just amend your allegation to this, and leave it alone.

Stopping any scholarly discussion is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.

Post reply on HN