The powerful tend to like the idea of less democratic governments / rigging the game (business) so they win. It's easy, they're not interested in competing in a market (ideas or business) if they can simply cuddle up to a despot and easily get theirs. So we see many line up to take their turn to bend the knee.
There's a weird idea among those on the right in the US where they see business people as somehow having some good insights as far business overall (the market) for the country. But really many of those who gain power are very much not interested in competing / open markets / competition, quite the opposite. They got theirs and for many the inclination is to close the door (market) behind them.
potato3732842 · 12h ago
You're not thinking general enough.
Once merit no longer becomes an effective moat individuals, organizations and entities turn to violence. In the modern world this means cozying up to government who has the monopoly on violence and getting competition regulated away if not in full then at least fractionally with barriers to entry.
I would be unsurprised if over the next 40yr the software industry does the same thing by adopting professional organizations that get themselves written into law the way various other professions have.
OldfieldFund · 19h ago
I felt that it was really easy to get consumed by money/power when I started making serious income. To feel that I'm better than other people.
And I mean that in the context of running my own company, which meant I could make very unethical decisions if I wanted to. (financial services -- the easiest niche to bend the rules just a little bit)
The temptation was strong, at least in my case.
It took me some time to turn around, understand when enough is enough, and what is actually important in life. Therapy helped.
I think that the old saying, albeit banal, rings true: "all power corrupts. and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
_DeadFred_ · 10h ago
When I was rich and on top of the world I remember running around in my boat full of people partying blasting this song and taking the chorus seriously. Man, it felt good. It felt so so good. Can't believe it was so long ago and a different life.
I feel he's a poster child of what happens when you consume too much social media. Blaming immigration for cutting off access to corporate america for Americans ? I really want to know what the numbers are and what they would be if immigration is completely stopped. Hopefully someone will come up with a simulation for this sort of thing so we can put the debate to rest. Its weird that this data-driven guy have no actual data to back up his claim.
xhkkffbf · 12h ago
Do your own research. Look at the CEOs throughout tech. It's hard to find CEOs with parents who were born in the United States. Many of the CEOs themselves were born overseas and they came to America either as children of grad students or as grad students themselves.
This is just an extension of the H1B or immigration debate. Bringing smart people to America may be nice for society, but it's tough for the natives who must compete against them. Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
_DeadFred_ · 10h ago
Non-American born parents sacrifice for their kids. Put every penny into their children's future, pick up a second job if they have to. Let their adult kids live at home, not kick them out. And when those kids succeed, they often give back building on the help they were given. Success compounds when you're part of a team.
My dad threw me out at 18. Spent my whole childhood bragging about how he couldn't wait for that day. Why? Because he was a hippie boomer and that's what he did at 18 (though his version of 'independence' came with parents who helped him buy multiple houses). He cut his own parents out of our lives, called it freedom, making it so I couldn't turn to them for help like he had. Not for money. Not even for emotional support.
Maybe kicking your kids out at 18 and making them do it all alone is a bad cultural habit. Or maybe the immigrant families who stick together/support each other are the problem.
bigbadfeline · 9h ago
I's so sorry for you, but you're an atypical case. The number of kids living with their parents have been increasing for the last decade or two, and it's the kids who complain that they can't get their beloved independence.
I don't think xhkkffbf understands the problem well enough but gaslighting him with tearful stories isn't the proper approach here.
On the topic - businesses don't like to compete but they like to have people compete for their jobs. Immigration is just one of the ways to skew the labor market in that direction. Monopolization is another - and growing rapidly.
Remote work is yet another skew factor, without a systemic overhaul, less visas will result in more remote work offshore.
xhkkffbf > Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
A heartbreaking talking point but actually irrelevant, foreign regulations play a minuscule role here - the difference in standards of living and local prices make it impossible for Americans to earn enough abroad, remotely or not. Again, it's a systemic issue, entirely local to the US.
_DeadFred_ · 6h ago
I thought we were talking about CURRENT CEOs. My story was the norm for my generation with boomer parents, not atypical, and you know...the generation that typically make up CEOs currently.
Wasn't meant to be gaslighting but instead my observation from growing up in the bay area and seeing mine and my friends trajectories. We anglos has a lot handed to us, a lot. But the lack of support lead to a lot of setbacks/starting over that others more quickly overcame because of family/support networks, allowing them to ultimately rise higher. Fun fact, if you restart mid race, you oftentimes lose the race. That's not a sob story, just how it goes.
sershe · 8h ago
Natives start with every advantage that immigrants don't have, so it sounds like the time for the worlds tiniest violin.
I think the USA is one of, if not the most meritocratic major societies in the world and throughout history (massive immigration despite relatively weak welfare state seems to indicate many with experience of other countries agree).
The unsaid implication is that non immigrant American poor is one of the most meritless major demographics to have ever existed. I mean look at some pictures from a Trump rally (or a left wing equivalent). Are these people prevented by immigrant competition from getting tech jobs? I am surprised they manage to keep breathing in and out without detailed instructions and constant supervision.
USG should save money by paying other countries to take these guys instead.
jimmydoe · 16h ago
I doubt people like Marc andreessen has much stable long term core beliefs, they are just opportunist who also occasionally feel the need to justify their opportunistic behavior.
drcongo · 15h ago
I doubt people like Marc Andreessen.
CoastalCoder · 15h ago
Clever pun!
amazingman · 1d ago
I still can't figure out if he was always a charlatan or something happened that turned him into one.
potamic · 12h ago
I've come to believe that people rarely change through their life. I can't think of many people neither in personal nor in public life, where I've seen a fundamental change in value system. But people are really good at putting up a persona that they want others to see. It takes a long time to really understand someone and who they really are.
nielsbot · 22h ago
I theorize people who “make it” start circulating in super rich social circles where people believe whatever racist idiocy he’s spouting. They certainly no longer spend time with anyone living an average lifestyle.
em500 · 19h ago
How could they? People living an average lifestyle need to work full time, transport the kids around, cook, do their household chores, file their taxes, queue everywhere. That's why people who no longer need to work for living mostly spend time with others who no longer need to work for living.
potato3732842 · 12h ago
Likewise, the blue collar classes rightfully ridicule the crap out of the HN class for sticking their dick in all sorts of issues that don't even deem worth the time of day.
grafmax · 15h ago
Billionaires have so much power that they 1) start asking themselves questions like “how can I change society?” and 2) are surrounded by sycophants waiting for crumbs. Besides that they are free to effectively decide the fates of others without their own skin in the game - think Alex Karp vs the immigrants being rounded up in concentration camps. What we have is a potent cocktail that engenders anti-human policies with no brakes whatsoever.
Loughla · 13h ago
I think the biggest problem for those that make it is being surrounded by people who just say yes, and not realizing when that transition happens. If you come from middle- to upper-middle-class and become 1% of the 1%, this switch has to be subtle, I would imagine.
When you're worth billions, it's easy to see how correct you were about business (or just assume you were correct, whether it was luck, inheritance, or whatever). And weirdly, the people in your life tend to agree with you about everything else outside of business (because they want access to that billionaire lifestyle, or are also so disconnected from average life that they naturally share your views already). You never hear a dissenting opinion, unless it's from some weirdo on the internet who is plainly just jealous of your wealth.
Jesters need to be a thing again. Somebody that follows around the wealthy and powerful and just absolutely blasts their bullshit every chance they get. Someone to say 'no' when all of the hangers-on say nothing but 'yes'.
lazzlazzlazz · 19h ago
The honest truth is that you (like many; I say this blamelessly) have been swept left, whereas Marc has not. He has remained utterly loyal to technological progress, which is under assault right now politically.
Ask yourself honestly if you are still as optimistic about technology and the intellectual freedom (and chaos, "unfettered conversations") as you may have been in the past. I have asked many friends this and the answer is "no".
austinjp · 18h ago
Can you define some terms? Without unambiguous definition this isn't very clear.
What is "technological progress"? And how does right-leaning politics support it?
he has been talking too much to AI and has become contaminated by AI and sycophants real and artificial
meowface · 14h ago
I am a turbolib who hates Andreessen but I think the progressive media outlets have been somewhat misinterpreting his leaked messages there. I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.
GuinansEyebrows · 12h ago
perhaps a distinction, but without a difference.
mindslight · 10h ago
There was a difference, when such criticism could mean something else besides supporting a fascist movement with kidnap gangs, concentration camps, and destruction of longstanding American institutions. DEI was indeed tedious and suffocating, but actual fascism red in tooth and claw is far far worse.
judahmeek · 13h ago
> I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.
When racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric gets distilled into desired policy, what else is there besides changes to race-based preferences in admissions & changes to immigration?
It seems like Andreessen supports Trump's entire racial platform, just not the rhetoric that Trump's MAGA base uses.
SpicyLemonZest · 12h ago
I think you're distilling too much if you lose the distinction between the people who don't want race-conscious admissions and the people who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, even if the second group isn't getting their way.
judahmeek · 7h ago
Except Trump never supported repealing the Civil Rights Act, so you're trying to use a straw-man that's too extreme even for him.
Also, you're ignoring that Andreessen opposes immigration in addition to race-conscious admissions[0].
DEI has been successfully reframed by the Right as being Affirmative Action v2, when it's really about having "equal opportunity" to compete for job opportunities (e.g., not just handing out jobs to friends of friends).
As someone who supported EOE policies, university DEI went way too far in some places. Unfortunately it took someone like Trump to end that. Dems didn’t seem to be aware or were afraid to rock the boat.
pstuart · 10h ago
There's plenty of cases where it was mishandled (along with mishandling plenty of other things).
This is a classic playbook of taking egregious missteps on handling policy and blaming the policy itself instead of the administrative failure.
For example, we want "drug free" schools, right? So the "easiest" thing to do is establish zero tolerance rules that lead to situations like this:
Does that mean we no longer want "drug free" schools?
mixmastamyk · 10h ago
I was careful with my claims and there are many more examples. Also there are valid philosophical reasons to disagree with such policies.
You vastly downplay what happened in those instances as “mishandling.” They read straight out of a dystopian novel.
If real people can’t be trusted to administer policy of promoting bias without becoming biased, then the policy must be abolished. (Not surprisingly.)
pstuart · 9h ago
The last thing I want to do is defend university bureaucrats.
The policies themselves should be the focal point of discussion, i.e., if there's merit to be had and how to deliver on that without making things worse.
Would you also call the strip-search incident I cited as dystopian? I would. I am stridently against The War on Drugs, but I also think keeping drugs out of schools is a good thing.
Using your approach the answer would be to not have any school policies about drugs on campus.
mixmastamyk · 5h ago
Yes—though when dystopian policy intrudes into hiring committees and "pledges of alliance," I feel it goes a step beyond mere bad policy.
pstuart · 2h ago
So then you're not opposed to the concept of DEI as I've tried to clarify? That is, to ensure opportunities are made public and possible to all who might qualify, even if they're not in the inner circle of those who are dispensing with said opportunities?
You know where you can find literal pledges of alliance these days? The Federal government, where they're doing loyalty checks to The King. Dystopian enough?
jasonthorsness · 1d ago
I'm surprised he lumped in MIT; I thought they were more score/grade-based in their admissions which I did not expect Marc to oppose.
pseudo0 · 1d ago
MIT experimented with going test-optional for a couple years, that might be what he was referring to? They have since reinstated their SAT/ACT requirement.
ixtli · 1d ago
> The communist millennials who entered the workforce in the 2010s sought to destroy every institution they touched
its so fulfilling to know someone as rich and powerful as Andreessen has acknowledged my hard work :)
GuinansEyebrows · 12h ago
he believes in us more than we do!
lazzlazzlazz · 19h ago
I have personally found Marc's takes refreshing and vital. HN, like many sites, has become more cynical and even self-loathing. There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.
Marc's descriptions in the link are validated even just by the comments here. It's incredible.
korse · 12h ago
>There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.
I think you are confusing skeptics of currently fashionable development roadmaps for popular technology with luddites.
As an example, I am a strong proponent of efforts to establish a multi-planetary society and at the same time believe that the future of humanity should have as many humans 'in the loop' as possible. This makes the technology underlying self-driving vehicles beneficial but the push to automate everyday human transport anathema. Other examples are collaborative robotics versus black-box manufacturing technology or global/system wide communications networks. Collaborative robotics allow for advanced manufacturing but can allow humans to retain their mastery of a craft and keep a hand in the process, enhancing rather than replacing. Communication networks, indispensable as they are, need not be a vehicle for exploiting weaknesses in the human psyche to hijack the human experience.
Perhaps I speak only for myself but I think there are quite a few members of this forum who hold similar opinions despite having deep knowledge of the subject matter and appreciating the technology at the core of the 'cutting edge'.
igor47 · 18h ago
Just curious -- which takes? That immigrants are destroying life for people from Wisconsin? That universities are anti progress and should pay a price? That the Trump administration is the only way to save progress and growth in America? Am I just misunderstanding what Marc is saying, and these are not his views at all?
alxjrvs · 17h ago
I also wonder if it includes the part where mark paraphrases the 14 words.
We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.
No comments yet
justinclift · 15h ago
> That universities are anti progress
Would it be that some are, and some aren't?
throw4847285 · 12h ago
Would it be that the concept of anti-progress is incoherent, and simply a thought terminating cliche?
rhelz · 16h ago
Domo Aregato, Mr. Roboto.
narrator · 14h ago
Marc decided to support Trump when the Biden admin told him that he shouldn't start AI companies because they were committed to an oligarchy of AI companies and they would classify math if they had to. Now the left is turning all their propaganda firepower on him.
geegee3 · 19h ago
Thanks for posting what I had in mind.
ENGNR · 19h ago
I’m so grateful that hacker news isn’t swayed too much politically - people in general are willing to consider any novel argument on its merits in search of deeper understanding. As opposed to say Reddit where if you don’t agree with the hivemind it’s instant downvotes.
> the combination of DEI and immigration two forms of discrimination that systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.
What a racist idiot he is. The main problem is the cost of college not “DEI”. He’s not even using the term correctly.
ZeroGravitas · 15h ago
DEI now means "black"/"black person"/"black people" in many contexts, including this one.
The comedian Bill Burr made some jokes about the Mangione situation and people on Twitter said it was because of his DEI wife.
zozbot234 · 16h ago
It's not even the cost of college per se, but the cost of credentialing at elite colleges. Everything else that people associate with college ed (not least the educational resources themselves, especially with progress in LLM's) is dirt cheap and often free.
BobaFloutist · 7h ago
Also state schools are (well, were) heavily subsidized for lower income families. God forbid you get paid to attend a top 50 public university instead of mortgaging your future for a top 10 private school.
bodiekane · 13h ago
Maybe other people's usage of the term is just different than yours without either being "correct".
For at least half of America, "DEI" means "giving preferential treatment to some individuals based on their race, sexuality or gender".
That might be a good thing (at a societal level it balances historical racism, or it counteracts unconscious bias or other contemporary inequalities) or that might be a bad thing (it's unfair to the individuals, it harms trust in the system and undermines meritocracy, visible attributes are a weak proxy to actual privilege) but that doesn't mean using the term the same way as hundreds of millions of other speakers is incorrect.
tropicalfruit · 14h ago
i think he's just angry because all the money in the world cant fix an egg-shaped head
No comments yet
Aloisius · 7h ago
When an article on a site called Liberal Currents starts making Marxism-adjacent arguments about disproportionate profit compared to contributions, I have to scratch my head about what the hell is happening.
While I don't agree with much of what Andreesen has said in recent years, I will say that given his central complaint is that Democrat elites have gone nuts, writing an article like this really doesn't help.
From the hyperbolic tech oligarchs slur, as if any of them have anything close to the power of an actual historical oligarch (a member of the Thirty Tyrants was the law, judge, jury and executioner) or even that of Russian "oligarchs" when the term was first applied to them, to the charge of treason, a crime that carries a penalty of death, and the promise of revenge - this whole article reads as unhinged.
Unlike Andreesen though, I can't pretend that Republicans haven't gone well past nuts.
They parrot QAnon conspiracy theories and known Russian propaganda originated on RT, call consumer protections fascism (!!!), and allude to actual ideas from fascism as being "interesting."
Just listen to that interview to see how morally corrupt they've become.
chermi · 12h ago
Did you actually read into the consumer protection stuff he's talking about? IIRC, he's talking about the consumer finance protection bureau "debanking" people for crypto stuff without them actually breaking any laws and without CFPB citing any laws/making the law clear. His contention was that it was extralegal, and it sounded pretty shitty to me.
Treating crypto as a risky and destabilizing security (like subprime mortgages) is a valid reaction to what happened during the SVB and FTX implosions. Accusing Elizabeth Warren and the Biden administration of being actual fascists over it is absolutely wild.
Similarly, saying "everyone knows" Biden was not the actual president, USAID was a terrorist funding organization, and that we can't keep track of money without blockchain....these all originate in QAnon circles or Russian state media.
To quote CS Lewis' novel, "That Hideous Strength", on why this is so dangerous:
> “Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything.”
chermi · 2h ago
You ignored the entire issue. It was extralegal. If they wanted to do something about it, they should make clear laws and enforce them.
And to add, I would say what you're doing is basically trying to forbid thought and discussion about what USAID has done or the Biden situation by tying it to something so reprehensible no one will want to associate with it. I don't like that. I want to be able to question USAID and what my president is doing. Stick to rebutting the actual ideas, it's a much healthier way to engage.
Edit-- I agree fascist label is wild, but can we admit there might be some hmm, fairly recent precedence for wild and often offensive use of terms like fascist and Nazi?
k310 · 1d ago
I vividly recall a Christmas message from him, which I can't find in the archives, "Merry Fucking Christmas" having to do with his work on Mosaic browser and the lack of adulation shown him for having done so.
"Privilege," whether through one's birth, skin color, past achievements and so on, when it turns to exceptionalism, is the ruination of society here and in the world.
Truly good people use their gifts and achievements to lift others up.
Empty shells seek to cut others down.
"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.
I wonder if a lot of these individuals who try incredibly hard to get more attention and "adulation" at the expense of others or feel under-appreciated just weren't loved very much as children or given much attention. I wonder how much of their behavior comes from a place of insecurity--not feeling that they are enough. Of course this type of behavior is not excusable, especially because humans are able to reason (if they try) and assert some level of control over their actions.
Loughla · 13h ago
Outside of actual physical abuse, I give people zero grace to blame their childhood for their shitty behavior as an adult.
You should be able to work through that shit. Especially if it was just that Dad didn't hug you enough. It's 2025; the tools are available. If you're a shitty adult, that's on you. If you're unable to process your own actions to see how attention seeking and desperate for validation you are, that's on you.
Source: I got the ever-loving hell kicked out of me as a kid, and sought help as an adult so that this nonsense could stop with me. If I can do it, with my lack of willpower and attention span, literally anyone can. Especially if they have access to the time and money required for that process.
justcallmejm · 21h ago
None of us is free until we are all free. It's a pathetic lack of reasoning to arrive at his conclusions.
curt15 · 13h ago
>"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.
Just look at how the free speech warriors from a couple years ago have changed their tune.
chermi · 13h ago
They were most likely never libertarian. There's been a wave the last ~10 years of conservatives claiming to be libertarian. I know, no true Scotsman...
pstuart · 12h ago
All the libertarians I've met have been white men with money...
GuinansEyebrows · 12h ago
i feel like a broken record, but i cannot recommend enough the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer for a primer on contemporary "big" american libertarianism.
So sad, all the money in the world and somehow he believes he's a victim.
taylodl · 1d ago
What’s truly sad isn’t that he feels victimized - it’s that he’s using his wealth and influence to settle personal scores. That’s not leadership; it’s grievance-fueled ego. It’s moral immaturity dressed in power.
ixtli · 1d ago
i find that reactionaries of all kinds put a lot of work into the mental gymanastics required to argue that somehow they are the real victims of injustice and it usually boils down to "people wont let me do whatever i want and also love me"
marcuskane2 · 13h ago
As a thought experiment to check your own biases, how do you feel about people like Colin Kaepernick speaking out about police abuses and racism in the justice system?
There are people who made roughly the same argument you're making here- since this individual became rich and famous within the current system, they shouldn't criticize the flaws in the system that have victimized others who they empathize with.
GuinansEyebrows · 12h ago
by trying to make this comparison, you mask the other huge, important difference between these examples: speaking out against police abuse and racism in the justice system is a just and moral act, and the things andreeson says are very bad and very stupid. the nerd-sniping semantic argument is so boring.
mindslight · 10h ago
They are not the same argument. Andreesen made his wealth because of the intended effects of the system, and rather than merely looking to reform it he's looking to wholesale tear it down as it is now holding him back from getting even more wealth. Kaepernick did not make his wealth from the failings of the justice system, and that system isn't really standing in his way today.
Furthermore, reform and wholesale destruction are very different things and anybody still supporting Trump on some notion that any of this is actually about fixing DEI/immigration/budget/regulation needs to get their head screwed on straight, and quick.
There's a weird idea among those on the right in the US where they see business people as somehow having some good insights as far business overall (the market) for the country. But really many of those who gain power are very much not interested in competing / open markets / competition, quite the opposite. They got theirs and for many the inclination is to close the door (market) behind them.
Once merit no longer becomes an effective moat individuals, organizations and entities turn to violence. In the modern world this means cozying up to government who has the monopoly on violence and getting competition regulated away if not in full then at least fractionally with barriers to entry.
I would be unsurprised if over the next 40yr the software industry does the same thing by adopting professional organizations that get themselves written into law the way various other professions have.
And I mean that in the context of running my own company, which meant I could make very unethical decisions if I wanted to. (financial services -- the easiest niche to bend the rules just a little bit)
The temptation was strong, at least in my case.
It took me some time to turn around, understand when enough is enough, and what is actually important in life. Therapy helped.
I think that the old saying, albeit banal, rings true: "all power corrupts. and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
'We are the people that rule the world' - Empire of the Sun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rm0gwqCR_0
This is just an extension of the H1B or immigration debate. Bringing smart people to America may be nice for society, but it's tough for the natives who must compete against them. Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
My dad threw me out at 18. Spent my whole childhood bragging about how he couldn't wait for that day. Why? Because he was a hippie boomer and that's what he did at 18 (though his version of 'independence' came with parents who helped him buy multiple houses). He cut his own parents out of our lives, called it freedom, making it so I couldn't turn to them for help like he had. Not for money. Not even for emotional support.
Maybe kicking your kids out at 18 and making them do it all alone is a bad cultural habit. Or maybe the immigrant families who stick together/support each other are the problem.
I don't think xhkkffbf understands the problem well enough but gaslighting him with tearful stories isn't the proper approach here.
On the topic - businesses don't like to compete but they like to have people compete for their jobs. Immigration is just one of the ways to skew the labor market in that direction. Monopolization is another - and growing rapidly.
Remote work is yet another skew factor, without a systemic overhaul, less visas will result in more remote work offshore.
xhkkffbf > Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
A heartbreaking talking point but actually irrelevant, foreign regulations play a minuscule role here - the difference in standards of living and local prices make it impossible for Americans to earn enough abroad, remotely or not. Again, it's a systemic issue, entirely local to the US.
Wasn't meant to be gaslighting but instead my observation from growing up in the bay area and seeing mine and my friends trajectories. We anglos has a lot handed to us, a lot. But the lack of support lead to a lot of setbacks/starting over that others more quickly overcame because of family/support networks, allowing them to ultimately rise higher. Fun fact, if you restart mid race, you oftentimes lose the race. That's not a sob story, just how it goes.
I think the USA is one of, if not the most meritocratic major societies in the world and throughout history (massive immigration despite relatively weak welfare state seems to indicate many with experience of other countries agree).
The unsaid implication is that non immigrant American poor is one of the most meritless major demographics to have ever existed. I mean look at some pictures from a Trump rally (or a left wing equivalent). Are these people prevented by immigrant competition from getting tech jobs? I am surprised they manage to keep breathing in and out without detailed instructions and constant supervision.
USG should save money by paying other countries to take these guys instead.
When you're worth billions, it's easy to see how correct you were about business (or just assume you were correct, whether it was luck, inheritance, or whatever). And weirdly, the people in your life tend to agree with you about everything else outside of business (because they want access to that billionaire lifestyle, or are also so disconnected from average life that they naturally share your views already). You never hear a dissenting opinion, unless it's from some weirdo on the internet who is plainly just jealous of your wealth.
Jesters need to be a thing again. Somebody that follows around the wealthy and powerful and just absolutely blasts their bullshit every chance they get. Someone to say 'no' when all of the hangers-on say nothing but 'yes'.
Ask yourself honestly if you are still as optimistic about technology and the intellectual freedom (and chaos, "unfettered conversations") as you may have been in the past. I have asked many friends this and the answer is "no".
What is "technological progress"? And how does right-leaning politics support it?
What do you mean by "unfettered conversations"?
https://archive.ph/lhknB
Link to NYT article:
https://archive.ph/rVUAf
When racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric gets distilled into desired policy, what else is there besides changes to race-based preferences in admissions & changes to immigration?
It seems like Andreessen supports Trump's entire racial platform, just not the rhetoric that Trump's MAGA base uses.
Also, you're ignoring that Andreessen opposes immigration in addition to race-conscious admissions[0].
0: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/marc-andreesen-and-the-billiona...
tl;dr -- DEI is actually about meritocracy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-...
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...
As someone who supported EOE policies, university DEI went way too far in some places. Unfortunately it took someone like Trump to end that. Dems didn’t seem to be aware or were afraid to rock the boat.
This is a classic playbook of taking egregious missteps on handling policy and blaming the policy itself instead of the administrative failure.
For example, we want "drug free" schools, right? So the "easiest" thing to do is establish zero tolerance rules that lead to situations like this:
https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year...
Does that mean we no longer want "drug free" schools?
You vastly downplay what happened in those instances as “mishandling.” They read straight out of a dystopian novel.
If real people can’t be trusted to administer policy of promoting bias without becoming biased, then the policy must be abolished. (Not surprisingly.)
The policies themselves should be the focal point of discussion, i.e., if there's merit to be had and how to deliver on that without making things worse.
Would you also call the strip-search incident I cited as dystopian? I would. I am stridently against The War on Drugs, but I also think keeping drugs out of schools is a good thing.
Using your approach the answer would be to not have any school policies about drugs on campus.
You know where you can find literal pledges of alliance these days? The Federal government, where they're doing loyalty checks to The King. Dystopian enough?
its so fulfilling to know someone as rich and powerful as Andreessen has acknowledged my hard work :)
Marc's descriptions in the link are validated even just by the comments here. It's incredible.
I think you are confusing skeptics of currently fashionable development roadmaps for popular technology with luddites.
As an example, I am a strong proponent of efforts to establish a multi-planetary society and at the same time believe that the future of humanity should have as many humans 'in the loop' as possible. This makes the technology underlying self-driving vehicles beneficial but the push to automate everyday human transport anathema. Other examples are collaborative robotics versus black-box manufacturing technology or global/system wide communications networks. Collaborative robotics allow for advanced manufacturing but can allow humans to retain their mastery of a craft and keep a hand in the process, enhancing rather than replacing. Communication networks, indispensable as they are, need not be a vehicle for exploiting weaknesses in the human psyche to hijack the human experience.
Perhaps I speak only for myself but I think there are quite a few members of this forum who hold similar opinions despite having deep knowledge of the subject matter and appreciating the technology at the core of the 'cutting edge'.
We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.
No comments yet
Would it be that some are, and some aren't?
This article has aged well: https://paulgraham.com/say.html
What a racist idiot he is. The main problem is the cost of college not “DEI”. He’s not even using the term correctly.
The comedian Bill Burr made some jokes about the Mangione situation and people on Twitter said it was because of his DEI wife.
For at least half of America, "DEI" means "giving preferential treatment to some individuals based on their race, sexuality or gender".
That might be a good thing (at a societal level it balances historical racism, or it counteracts unconscious bias or other contemporary inequalities) or that might be a bad thing (it's unfair to the individuals, it harms trust in the system and undermines meritocracy, visible attributes are a weak proxy to actual privilege) but that doesn't mean using the term the same way as hundreds of millions of other speakers is incorrect.
No comments yet
While I don't agree with much of what Andreesen has said in recent years, I will say that given his central complaint is that Democrat elites have gone nuts, writing an article like this really doesn't help.
From the hyperbolic tech oligarchs slur, as if any of them have anything close to the power of an actual historical oligarch (a member of the Thirty Tyrants was the law, judge, jury and executioner) or even that of Russian "oligarchs" when the term was first applied to them, to the charge of treason, a crime that carries a penalty of death, and the promise of revenge - this whole article reads as unhinged.
Unlike Andreesen though, I can't pretend that Republicans haven't gone well past nuts.
They parrot QAnon conspiracy theories and known Russian propaganda originated on RT, call consumer protections fascism (!!!), and allude to actual ideas from fascism as being "interesting."
Just listen to that interview to see how morally corrupt they've become.
Treating crypto as a risky and destabilizing security (like subprime mortgages) is a valid reaction to what happened during the SVB and FTX implosions. Accusing Elizabeth Warren and the Biden administration of being actual fascists over it is absolutely wild.
Similarly, saying "everyone knows" Biden was not the actual president, USAID was a terrorist funding organization, and that we can't keep track of money without blockchain....these all originate in QAnon circles or Russian state media.
To quote CS Lewis' novel, "That Hideous Strength", on why this is so dangerous:
> “Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything.”
And to add, I would say what you're doing is basically trying to forbid thought and discussion about what USAID has done or the Biden situation by tying it to something so reprehensible no one will want to associate with it. I don't like that. I want to be able to question USAID and what my president is doing. Stick to rebutting the actual ideas, it's a much healthier way to engage.
Edit-- I agree fascist label is wild, but can we admit there might be some hmm, fairly recent precedence for wild and often offensive use of terms like fascist and Nazi?
"Privilege," whether through one's birth, skin color, past achievements and so on, when it turns to exceptionalism, is the ruination of society here and in the world.
Truly good people use their gifts and achievements to lift others up.
Empty shells seek to cut others down.
"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.
graphic (postimages.org)
https://i.postimg.cc/YqFrtzXg/Four-Libertarian-Freedoms-1.jp...
You should be able to work through that shit. Especially if it was just that Dad didn't hug you enough. It's 2025; the tools are available. If you're a shitty adult, that's on you. If you're unable to process your own actions to see how attention seeking and desperate for validation you are, that's on you.
Source: I got the ever-loving hell kicked out of me as a kid, and sought help as an adult so that this nonsense could stop with me. If I can do it, with my lack of willpower and attention span, literally anyone can. Especially if they have access to the time and money required for that process.
Just look at how the free speech warriors from a couple years ago have changed their tune.
There are people who made roughly the same argument you're making here- since this individual became rich and famous within the current system, they shouldn't criticize the flaws in the system that have victimized others who they empathize with.
Furthermore, reform and wholesale destruction are very different things and anybody still supporting Trump on some notion that any of this is actually about fixing DEI/immigration/budget/regulation needs to get their head screwed on straight, and quick.