I mentally tune out anyone who uses the word "elitist". To me, it's one of the clearest signs that they're arguing using prejudices rather than evidence.
one who is an adherent of elitism : one whose attitudes and beliefs are biased in favor of a socially elite class of people
I don't care much for her coverage but she's attacking a company whose CEO is worth a lot of money. Hard to say any of the people being criticized isn't part of the elite
Exactly. I love Lorenz's work (flawed as it may be[0]) in dismantling or at the very least shining a light on the hypocrisy and double-standards of the SV elites[1].
[0] I dare anyone to point me to a flawless employee regardless of their employer or job title.
[1] Just google her name you'll find plenty of coverage of (predominately) white, old VC dudes unleashing their followers on her.
That is not. Surely it’s obvious that the high-school your parents sent you to could influence your attitudes later in life, but they don’t define them?
(BTW, I don’t know who Taylor Lorenz is, and don’t really care. I’m just surprised by this reasoning.)
The profound pathologies driving all of this were on full display on Saturday night as the result of a reckless and self-humiliating smear campaign by one of The New York Times’ star tech reporters, Taylor Lorenz. She falsely and very publicly accused Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen of having used the “slur” word “retarded” during a discussion about the Reddit/GameStop uprising.
Lorenz lied. Andreessen never used that word. And rather than apologize and retract it, she justified her mistake by claiming it was a “male voice” that sounded like his, then locked her Twitter account as though she — rather than the person she falsely maligned — was the victim.
It’s not that it’s impossible to be what one could fairly describe as an elitist - it’s just one of those words that’s widely known to cast more heat than light. “Taylor Lorenz writes as though the social norms she’s familiar with are universal”, for example, is a less confrontational way to express the same thought.
> Stories they have been fed by the media and have accepted without thinking
Seems like you would rather drink the kool aid given to you in press releases by companies! Good going!
> Tech companies are the only inspiring institutions
Yes, I do feel inspired to hire vulnerable people and squash all their rights, make them work to the bone, violate all their privacy, and make them pee in bottles.
Unsurprisingly, vast majority of $ traded in Energy and Industrials is by GOP, and in tech is by Dems.
Then there's this:
> Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Mark Green, alone, accounts for 99% of the stock purchases in oil and gas companies like USA Compression and Energy Transfer.
Look this guy up [1]:
> Green rejects the scientific consensus that human activity plays a key role in climate change.
It's hard to argue that Spotify is a monopoly when Apple Music, whatever Google's service is called now and Tidal have pretty much the same selection. And you can buy DRM free music still on iTunes and Qobuz. And even physical media. Oligopoly at worst.
I bet you also think grocery workers are dumb for agreeing to work while demanding better working conditions and fair pay.
They are not dumb decisions. An indie artist HAS to sign with labels if they want to make it in the industry. That's the way it's been and we've accepted for decades that that's the way it will be.
Mistreating workers is not okay. Workers joining the status quo to make a living is not dumb. Calling them "dumb" online is deplorable, however.
It's something that's changing drastically every day. An indie artist is more and more able to record and upload their own song to spotify today than any time before.
Just being able to upload to Spotify does not make a sustainable career. You need marketing, and you need to build up a wide and loyal following of people who will buy your stuff.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7640