8 ms·

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 know

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 example of this.

mrshoe 17y ago
That's probably why the title of the essay is "Persuade xor Discover". pg started out thinking about Arrington, but, since he was writing to discover, he explored other ideas. Those ideas became the main point of the essay.
- heuristix 17y ago
  The fact that the essay is mostly about the other ideas and titled as such does not discount the fact that the argument therein that most people dislike Arrington simply because he is curt is flawed. pg cites his own curt/succint approach to writing as a reason people dislike him and speculates that people dislike Arrington for the same reason, thus using Arrington as an example for part of his argument. While pg's central thesis in the essay stands, the Arrington example does not.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- heuristix 17y ago
  > Can an essay whose explicit purpose is not to persuade even make a straw man defense? Yes, it can (and does) make a flawed argument, which to most people would seem to be a defense of Arrington even if not intended as such. What you take away from an essay is obviously up to you.
pg 17y ago
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?
- dfranke 17y ago
  I'd still object to his publishing of the stolen Twitter memos under the pretense, contradicted by Ev, that he had permission, no matter how ingratiating he were about it. Other conduct, such as his baseless attack on Last.FM and his recent T-shirt gaffe, simply could not be formulated or carried out by the personality that you describe.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    his baseless attack on Last.FM Other commenters have referred to this as well. I'm curious: how do you know it was baseless? All I remember is an unsatisfyingly ambiguous they-said-they-said dispute that was never resolved in my mind (and apparently not Google's as well, because a quick search doesn't reveal anything). IIRC, Techcrunch printed what they said was a leaked email substantiating the base of their claim. Was that email a forgery? Just to spray some anti-troll foam on this, I mean my questions strictly literally. I don't have a preference for the truth to be one way or the other. I'm just curious (mildly; enough to post the question) what it actually is.
- philwelch 17y ago
  I suspect many people would still have no idea what Arrington's personality is in person, and thus continue to judge him entirely based upon the behavior of TechCrunch. How he greets people in person probably has no real impact. This can extend even further--from everything I've gathered, George W. Bush is a very easy person to like once you know him in person. Yet he was very recently one of the most widely despised people in the world. Your actual personality doesn't seem to matter once you start doing things people don't like, or otherwise become famous outside people who know you in person.

mrshoe 17y ago

That's probably why the title of the essay is "Persuade xor Discover". pg started out thinking about Arrington, but, since he was writing to discover, he explored other ideas. Those ideas became the main point of the essay.

heuristix 17y ago
The fact that the essay is mostly about the other ideas and titled as such does not discount the fact that the argument therein that most people dislike Arrington simply because he is curt is flawed. pg cites his own curt/succint approach to writing as a reason people dislike him and speculates that people dislike Arrington for the same reason, thus using Arrington as an example for part of his argument. While pg's central thesis in the essay stands, the Arrington example does not.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

heuristix 17y ago
> Can an essay whose explicit purpose is not to persuade even make a straw man defense? Yes, it can (and does) make a flawed argument, which to most people would seem to be a defense of Arrington even if not intended as such. What you take away from an essay is obviously up to you.

pg 17y ago

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?

dfranke 17y ago
I'd still object to his publishing of the stolen Twitter memos under the pretense, contradicted by Ev, that he had permission, no matter how ingratiating he were about it. Other conduct, such as his baseless attack on Last.FM and his recent T-shirt gaffe, simply could not be formulated or carried out by the personality that you describe.
- gruseom 17y ago
  his baseless attack on Last.FM Other commenters have referred to this as well. I'm curious: how do you know it was baseless? All I remember is an unsatisfyingly ambiguous they-said-they-said dispute that was never resolved in my mind (and apparently not Google's as well, because a quick search doesn't reveal anything). IIRC, Techcrunch printed what they said was a leaked email substantiating the base of their claim. Was that email a forgery? Just to spray some anti-troll foam on this, I mean my questions strictly literally. I don't have a preference for the truth to be one way or the other. I'm just curious (mildly; enough to post the question) what it actually is.
philwelch 17y ago
I suspect many people would still have no idea what Arrington's personality is in person, and thus continue to judge him entirely based upon the behavior of TechCrunch. How he greets people in person probably has no real impact. This can extend even further--from everything I've gathered, George W. Bush is a very easy person to like once you know him in person. Yet he was very recently one of the most widely despised people in the world. Your actual personality doesn't seem to matter once you start doing things people don't like, or otherwise become famous outside people who know you in person.