Posted by taylorlunt 7/3/2025
That doesn’t justify it, of course, but I think it partially explains it.
Are these legitimate signals of success or signs that "the game is rigged" to advantage those with existing privilege? Both perhaps?
And the irony is, the vc couldnt see it either!!
There was also no control for this experiment, so we don't know what the alternative even looks like.
and if it is, it's toxic because people get into entrepreneurship because they think they have a shot. if they don't, because stupid credential X is not in their pocket, why the fuck should they even try?
of course there is not control. this is a tweet, not a submission to PNAS
Iron should be mandatory ages 4-12 to avoid these situations.
Why should someone who thinks sex work be decriminalized be automatically be thrown into the feminist camp?
They aren't mutually exclusive. I can think that sex work is exploitive and at the same time not want sex workers to go to jail.
In the same way I can think drugs are bad, but locking up drug abusers is also bad.
It doesn't solve any problems and people I view as victims are the ones getting punished.
(Though as nations where sex work is legal show: decriminalisation is not sufficient to make most sex work non-exploitative)
> hypocrisy by association
You had it right in your title and elsewhere in your post. Bailey isn't accusing Khetan of hypocrisy, which is a difference between one's words and one's actions; the example in TFA is about a difference between a group's words and an individual's words, which is contradiction; actions-vs-words is not being discussed. It's also not self-contradiction, since Bailey isn't accusing Khetan of contradicting his own earlier statements. [1]
This reminds of the phrase, "stay in your lane": "stay in" here means "speak according to a certain viewpoint"; and "your lane" is the beliefs of some group. "Stop disagreeing with people similar to you," is a ludicrous thing to say. It's even more ludicrous when "people similar to you" is "people in general"; there's billions of "people in general"; that group disagrees on every topic known to man and dog.
"Contradicting humanity" wouldn't sound pithy, but that's what Bailey is accusing Khetan of doing. To your point, Bailey is accusing Khetan of "contradicting your group", which is undoubtedly a form of the Association Fallacy. [2]
Bailey is also engaging in performative contradiction, by demanding that Khetan agree with "people in general", while Bailey is not himself agreeing with "people in general", because that is an impossible task.
[0] Applying a stereotype to all people would be absurd, since a stereotype is about a sub-category of people; a stereotype is meant to highlight alleged differences between categories of people; to highlight the differences between A and A would be absurd -- there are none.
[1] Yes, Khetan is a member of "people in general", but Bailey is comparing Khetan's words to the words of "people in general minus Khetan" -- instance versus class-minus-that-instance. Okay, maybe Bailey isn't thinking that deeply about this, hence why TFA needed to be written.
[2] I could have lead with this, but I don't have enough time to re-write this.
What? 'stay in your lane' means some variant of 'don't comment on stuff you don't know about' or 'mind your own business', it's got nothing to do with speaking in unity with a group.