Live data from Hacker News

Persuade xor Discover

paulgraham.com

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#51
post #4

I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me. I also don't own a startup, so there's no conflict there. My personal beef is that TechCrunch is a 'serious journalistic entity' when they get documents leaked to them, but the second people start trying to hold them to the standard of real journalism suddenly it a blog. It's difficult to pinpoint, but there's something two-faced about…

"I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me."

Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his articles.

When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking when someone just skips it.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post by a Stanford student.

If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them.

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#52

I'd rather offend people needlessly than use needless words Just out of curiosity, have you ever discovered something that you thought would offend enough of your audience that there was no point publishing it?

Yes, whole essays.

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#53
I've met him. Plus a bunch more Valley personalities. I've been underwhelmed by their openness to non-fawning unknowns. Which is amusing me. A couple of years ago I sold my unknown european startup in a private (and NDA'd) transaction for around 45m dollars. After the handcuffs expired I moved to silicon valley last year and since then I've been lurking in the community. I've been talking to everyone and not playing up my background. The arrogance and name-dropping is hilarious. The importance of being in the right circles. I actually have a day job working on a fun project so that I could meet and work with people. Immerse myself in the culture so to speak. I find it there as well. Newly minted Stanford PhDs sure are full of "confidence" shall we say :-)

I'm small fry - don't get me wrong - but the 'personalities' certainly want you to do the running and love the attention. I'm actually pondering starting my next company somewhere else because, frankly, I'm not convinced that the valley echo chamber is the best place to be (unless you are flipping fad companies of dubious long term value).

Let the flames begin ;-)

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#54
post #30

This is a strawman defence. PG is defending Arrington's curtness when you meet him in person and accepting the facts as presented (since I have no personal knowledge), the defense sounds reasonable. However, as many others mention below, most people dislike Arrington because Techcrunch has no journalistic scruples. The way they attacked Last.fm without even bothering to properly check into facts was yet another examp…

When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. Try this thought experiment: if Arrington seemed like the nicest, most self-deprecating guy in the world-- like Father Mulcahy, for anyone who remembers MASH-- would people be so angry about his supposed lack of journalistic scruples?

Well, if you're going to be a badass journalist, you have to do it all the time. Arrigton just does it when it serves his purpose and that's why he lacks journalistic integrity. Case in point: you were told you were being mean because your insightful questions made some startups look bad at TechCrunch50.

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#55
People who think the labor movement was the creation of heroic union organizers have a problem to explain

This is a standard formulation that implies that you disagree with the statement "the labor movement was the creation of heroic union organizers."

That isn't the statement with which you want to disagree. You want to disagree with the person who thinks that we could return to the old days, if we were only more heroic.

Try something like this:

Some people think that the reason for the loss of the high-paying union job is a lack of moral courage in the modern age. Our ancestors were giants, and if we were more like them we could return to the golden age.

In fact the truth is simpler than the "fallen civilization" explanation . . .

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#56
Well, this is a turning point. I'm pretty sure I've read all of pg's essays, and this is the first one that I unambiguously disagree with. I think he has completely overlooked the real reasons Arrington is unpopular, and taken the topic off into the weeds. I guess it's good to have some evidence that I am capable of thinking for myself after all. (Heh.)

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#57
post #51
post #4

I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me. I also don't own a startup, so there's no conflict there. My personal beef is that TechCrunch is a 'serious journalistic entity' when they get documents leaked to them, but the second people start trying to hold them to the standard of real journalism suddenly it a blog. It's difficult to pinpoint, but there's something two-faced about…

"I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me." Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his articles. When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual boilerplate disclaimers th…

Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his articles.

I don't care if he appears to be a nice or a mean guy. I don't judge people by that criteria. My experience working in the academic research community has taught me that intelligent and busy people sometimes come across as mean, but it's nothing personal. I'm totally used to un-ingratiating people and I work with them every day; it doesn't affect me at all.

When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking when someone just skips it.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. How about you being reprimanded for asking "mean" questions at TechCrunch 50? Apparently Arrington wanted the boilerplate. I suppose it probably has something to do with the fact that it was TechCrunch's reputation on the line, not a company he was writing about.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post by a Stanford student.

That's a fair point, but I don't really feel like wasting an hour of my evening digging through TechCrunch archives. I'll pull a TechCrunch and say that an anonymous source close to the TechCrunch editorial board told me. My original comment is about as well sourced as their average article. ;) Also, it's not hypocritical since I'm not earning advertising dollars from my words. I don't claim that journalism is my profession. If I was making money off of the words I posted to HN, I would keep track of my sources. As it stands right now, I'm simply offering an opinion.

EDIT: dfranke has some examples though: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838197

EDIT2:

If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them.

Those words were chosen in haste and I wont defend them. You're right to call me out on them. I don't actually believe that TechCrunch is in the business of outright fabrication. If I wrote a popular and influential tech blog I would have deleted those words during the editing phase. :)

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#58
post #30

This is a strawman defence. PG is defending Arrington's curtness when you meet him in person and accepting the facts as presented (since I have no personal knowledge), the defense sounds reasonable. However, as many others mention below, most people dislike Arrington because Techcrunch has no journalistic scruples. The way they attacked Last.fm without even bothering to properly check into facts was yet another examp…

When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. Try this thought experiment: if Arrington seemed like the nicest, most self-deprecating guy in the world-- like Father Mulcahy, for anyone who remembers MASH-- would people be so angry about his supposed lack of journalistic scruples?

Angry? No, because anger isn't the appropriate emotional response to such a person.

But that doesn't mean that people would react positively, either. The response would simply be altered: people would likely try to work with him, try to correct his behavior as they saw fit, or dismiss him altogether.

> When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves.

This is stunningly arrogant, and I'm speaking as someone that's constantly accused of arrogance. If you're going to tell people that you understand their motivations or behaviors better than they do, you should trot out some better evidence than mere conjecture.

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too imprecise. The claim was that a segmentation by birth year would not be expected to correlate with bravery, smarts, or hard work, not that there's no segmentation that correlates with any of those qualities. Your proposed version is quite PC, to be sure, and I'm sure most humanities majors would defend it tooth and nail (cheap dig, I know :) ), but that in itself suggests to me that it's not what pg had in mind..…

Actually, that's what makes it better. The argument against Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation isn't that those WWII heroes were so special; it's that no one generation could be. I could have been more precise with a modifying phrase such as "by accident of birth", but that was too unwieldy. The upvoted comments are specific to the GG argument, which are suboptimal, because they don't work as good writing unless you've…

Yours may be "good writing" but you completely changed the meaning of the statement. In my opinion, it's important to mention WW2 -- it's easy to make the statement not offensive to The Greatest Generation by completely removing the reference.

Re: Persuade xor Discover

#60

I've met him. Plus a bunch more Valley personalities. I've been underwhelmed by their openness to non-fawning unknowns. Which is amusing me. A couple of years ago I sold my unknown european startup in a private (and NDA'd) transaction for around 45m dollars. After the handcuffs expired I moved to silicon valley last year and since then I've been lurking in the community. I've been talking to everyone and not playing…

come to Cambridge, UK. Nice city, people and startups.
Post reply on HN