Whoa, hold on. You're engaging in a worse version of exactly what you're accusing others of.

> Do you see the problem? Rob Bailey is calling Bhavye Khetan a hypocrite because Bhavye Khetan said something that contradicts something that "people" say.

Nobody called anybody a hypocrite (nor implied it for that matter) - you entirely put those words in his mouth. All he said was that people have a common complaint that contradicts what this person is complaining about. The implication is simply that VCs have contradictory demands placed on them, so they can't fully satisfy them all. If anything, that guy was asking for people to have some sympathy for VCs who are actually willing to have a call -- not trying to smear anyone as a hypocrite!

And I point this out specifically to illustrate how unrealistic it is to expect people to avoid making assumptions that might be wrong. It's normal and human to make common assumptions -- that's how progress is made without slowing everything down to a crawl. You're not immune to it any more than anybody else. The solution to being wrong isn't to always avoid making assumptions and beat people up who do so; it's to be reasonable in doing so, and to also be more generous on the receiving side and try to understand the point they were trying to make better.

I'm guilty of similar automatic responses as Rob's. Same goes for using "always" and "everyone" during arguments.

Now I'm trying to have a rule at home, that if we use "always/everyone" we automatically "lost" the argument and have to step back and rethink :)

Personally I find it hard to keep this in control and I know it takes away some ability to apply empathy (as in being in someones shoes, not pity). It's about finding a way to look at yourself from a distance. Preferably before I speak. Often it's not the case - I can do that, but in moments of relative comfort. So I'm still guilty of generalizing and blaming a person for group issues sometimes.

I'm wondering how others train themselves to increase that self awareness (and in the end practical empathy)?

Should I even try to improve it during stress/challenging situations, or rather eliminate that factor (for instance, by doing less on-the-fly calls) and try to have more talks when things are not rushed?

> People will argue with an individual as if that individual is the spokesperson for a larger group. People will call someone a hypocrite not for contradicting themselves, but for contradicting other people.

This sums up what's become so exhausting about online discussion

Everybody can fall into these traps, depending on the circumstances. There are some assumptions one should be careful to make when online:

1. Assuming you know how the person thinks from a small sample of comments they made. You may have missed the context (can happen on this platform sometimes since the reply may be very distant to the comment it replied to)

2. Assuming what you think they said is what they said for real. Topics that you dealt with can prime you to read certain things in certain ways. This can be bad if you mentally start adding words or sentiments that are not there.

3. Assuming someone is attacking you, personally. Most people don't know each other online, if someone responds critically to you the chances are very high they don't know you and are mostly focused on what you wrote. Maybe they have a point, maybe they read something into it and critque a point you didn't make or maybe they are a troll (so someone who is purposely inflammatory). But it is very rare for someone to attack a person for who they are. If you're attacked you're attacked for what you represent.

Social media makes it possible --- indeed there is a payoff for doing so --- to take extreme positions that most would not do face to face.

Getting a rise out of people is now ends to means. Getting recognition for outing a perceived flaw in other is ends for means. And it's all boils down to shadow boxing in a cage of symbolism measured by likes/followers.

Push back online drives ads, looks, traffic. Talking #^=×@@ or BSing a person face to face may not work or be attempted due to real world consequences.

Tribal modalities online in the large or niche sense is just a conventional way of doing it because it's auto magnifying. Why take a shot at one VC when you can take at shot at all VCs?

How do you point out to someone that they're doing this in a way they won't just like... knee-jerk deny and reverse? Is there no solution and this is ultimately a sign of bad-faith discussion? It feels more and more likely...

The affordances of social media don't make it easy for nuanced discussion:

- Broadcast messages "perform" better with a degree of generalization

- Algorithmic feeds warp our perceptions of any shared context

- Personal risk is mitigated if you talk about the opinions of the group

- You can avoid personal disclosure by speaking in broad terms

- Responding to a comment with a more general criticism side-steps personal attacks

I think our increased tribalism is at least partly a consequence of using media with characteristics like these. Eventually, you're not thinking in terms of individuals with balanced opinions but more in terms of tribal representatives because this is often our experience.

This Rob guy from the article is also using two classic techniques you'll see bullshitters use all the time, strawman arguments and appeal to authority (ad verecundiam).

I used to get wrapped around the axle about things like this and write analysis posts which I normally did not end up publishing. I stopped doing it because I realized it’s not helpful. This isn’t going to change anything or help anyone. People are going to continue to make dumb arguments and that’s fine. Not everything has to rise to the level of philosophy.

I guess if you legitimately enjoy meta-commentary of social media posts then keep doing you.

This blog post was served an opportunity on a silver platter to explain what's wrong with the responding tweet and instead contains a highly irrelevant analogy.

Original Post: VCs respond if you say AI. VCS don't respond at all if you don't mention AI

Response: You should be happy that they only respond to AI and not respond if you don't have AI

OP calls the game rigged, but the response calls the game fair. That's where the contradiction lies.