Idk, it seems to me that PG is just wrong about this. Not categorically and in every single instance, but on the whole. It's like saying women are physically stronger than men, and pointing to some woman who is clearly an outlier. You could word it less strongly and say that some women are stronger than some men. But then what would be your point?
I read the two as "You don't need to be rich to be a founder" and "it's very beneficial to be rich to be a founder".
This would be more analogous to "you don't need to be a man to be strong", rather than "women are stronger than men".
I think PG's concern is if it's understood "you need to be rich to be a founder", then if you're not rich, you think it won't be possible to be a founder.
He's saying more something along the lines of "women can be elite performers too" (and that being genetically/on average less strong shouldn't stop them from trying) - which isn't entirely wrong, especially since we're already talking about like 0.01% of the population (successful entrepreneurs / elite sports(wo)men).
Don't get blinded by the analogy. There's an important difference between it and the problem we're discussing: We can't actually change the fact that woman generally are not as strong as men. We can however as a society change the fact that many people don't have a safety net. I appreciate that Paul G's intended meaning was different, but it's kind of hard not to interpret what he wrote, as no, we don't actually have to change society [which has worked well for me], poor or underprivileged people just have to try harder.
> it's kind of hard not to interpret what he wrote, as no, we don't actually have to change society [which has worked well for me], poor or underprivileged people just have to try harder.
Spot on. He could have said "hey, maybe you're right, privileged is a factor, and I was only thinking in terms of wealth." Instead he was defensive.
Public discourse is a great influencer, provided you have the ability to be influenced. If you don't, then you carve a rough path for yourself, whether you're small time or big time.
You’re just painting your own bias over his words. How about interpreting what he said literally i.e. “even poor people can start businesses” instead of misinterpreting him as “against social nets”?
If you take him literally, I.e. without the social context, then his statements is essentially meaningless.
All it would take is one single example of a poor person being successful while all of the others fail and die in poverty to prove him right.
His example is part of the context, and the fact that his example was not in fact of a poor person demonstrates that he isn’t being responsible for what he says, and deserves the criticism he is receiving.
Yes, I agree. But I also think I acknowledged that, when I wrote I appreciate that Paul G's intended meaning was different.
How about _interpreting_ what he said _literally_...
Hmm...
instead of misinterpreting him as “against social nets”
Again, I think I was quite clear about the distinction between Paul G. (probably) meant, and how I (subjectively) interpret it. My point is not that Paul G is a bad person. I just think he is being somewhat obtuse and insensitive. He is making an argument against a position that nobody is defending, namely that one can't or shouldn't take risk if one is poor. The discussion that sensible people were having before, was about whether one's level of privilege might have something to do with one's willingness to take risk.
