The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said.
Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion.
Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction.
For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).
And only a single stupid interpretation results in mapping "against anti-colonialism" to "pro colonialism", but you chose exactly that one.
And now, apparently a self-righteous hypocrite who is arguing against net neutrality because it suits his financial interests in Facebook.
There isn't a charitable interpretation to what he said. There's only a "damage control" interpretation. And that one doesn't really fit well with the fact that he blocked people who retweetted (and hence gave more prominence) to his original tweet.
Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well. I don't care and am not qualified to argue those.
The point is that we can't have meaningful conversations when so many people jump immediately on the misinterpretation of a statement that is most useful for bringing out the hate for the one who spoke it.
Agreed.
The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. The bottom line is a VC has said a really stupid thing which goes against his earlier pronouncements on NN, because he literally has money on the line as an FB investor. Which ever way you look at it, he sounds like an out-of-touch corporatist.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021
The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance.
If we value having any kind of meaningful discussion then does it really not matter that we criticize on the grounds you mention and not just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist?
It's not a mischaracterization. Just because he now regrets calling his opponents "anti-colonialists" (or rather because the internet made him regret it) does not mean I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Did he explicitly state that he thinks India would be better off under colonial rule? No.
Did he call opponents of Free Basics "anti-colonialist"?
If he's uninformed about what colonialism did to India, then he should shut his mouth about it. But that would be too hard seeing as he has personal interest in Facebook getting a monopoly there and offering a second-class internet experience without having to invest anything into bandwidth (which would be paid for by the state).
Besides, the so-called "explanation" of his views in further tweets makes it look even worse because "anti-colonialism" is apparently very close to "nationalism". So those filthy Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly.
... which is still different from being in favor of or somehow defending colonialism (leaving aside the notion that he must think of them as "filthy" Indians).
We can criticize Andreessen for any among a giant pile of good reasons for doing so, while understanding that in this instance he was talking about something like anti-Westernism and should have used something like that phrase instead of the one he did.
100% of your dislike for him remains and is well-founded without undermining your argument with the belief that he really thinks those "filthy Indians" ought never to have escaped colonial rule.
(I have zero motivation to defend Andreessen on anything he's actually said or done -- I just object to the misinterpretation and mischaracterization going on here because it destroys valuable conversation and debate.)
Those are not my words -- I am responding to those words.