I think it's an interesting perspective (plus, I like his style of writing).
We all get that the 'lifestyle business' runs with different assumptions than the 'VC-funded business'. It really is two different worlds. Why not just accept, then, that the 'lifestyle business' crowd has their own assumptions (just like HN has its own), instead of casting it as the new enemy?
On another (but related) line of thought, since the 'lifestyle business' crowd is in general older (compared to the HN crowd) and not a marginal group (it's quite a movement), don't you think it deserves some attention, instead of combating it?
On the contrary, I have zero interest in the oppositions you set up. I said nothing about "lifestyle" vs. "VC-funded" businesses, and neither did the OP (other than gratuitously name-dropping 37 Signals at one point). Approximately, you're telling me that I'm involved in a war between pandas and oranges because I commented on a post about dinner plates.
I spoke so harshly of this post, not because I have any opinion about whether startups ought to seek venture capital, but because it says things like this: YC "hire as many gullible young naive programmers as possible and work them to death", and "Who will end up really getting the spoils out of any of YCombinator’s work? Paul Graham." These statements are demonstrably false. Worse, they are falsehoods which anybody could easily learn are false with just a little research.
Then there's this whole other level of nastiness. Paul Graham thinks that "designing and building is for chumps". He wants to "make the big bucks and sit on [his] ass". He (by implication) "can't wait to screw over the next guy". Are you telling me that I am wrong to call this "personally ugly"?
Clearly, you and I have very different tastes in writing style. More importantly, I object to your reasoning that if I criticize someone who is doing X (combating and casting enemies), I must also be doing X.
Point well taken for the unjustified personal attacks in the OP. Although exaggeration clearly is a figure of speech in this case, just like the 'cannon fodder'.
Although indeed there is no mention of 'lifestyle business' and 'VC-funded business', I read the OP as a voice for the former, in the context of the current (and interesting) debate between the two. Linking to and siding with Daniel Haran (the author of 'YC is cult', a pro lifestyle business) tend to support this.
I object to your reasoning that if I criticize someone who is doing X (combating and casting enemies), I must also be doing X.
I understand what you mean, and I'm sorry if you meant to criticize as opposed to 'combat'. However, your How can anything manage to be this incoherent, ignorant, dysfunctional did not sound right to me, hence my first reply to your comment.
However, your How can anything manage to be this incoherent, ignorant, dysfunctional did not sound right to me
You forgot "personally ugly" :)
Actually that phrase doesn't sound right to me now, either. I was focusing on whether the words were individually accurate, and I still think they are. But put together, they come across as heavy-handed. I see why you got the impression you did.
Usually I edit to the point where you might call it pathological, but not enough that time!
We all get that the 'lifestyle business' runs with different assumptions than the 'VC-funded business'. It really is two different worlds. Why not just accept, then, that the 'lifestyle business' crowd has their own assumptions (just like HN has its own), instead of casting it as the new enemy?
On another (but related) line of thought, since the 'lifestyle business' crowd is in general older (compared to the HN crowd) and not a marginal group (it's quite a movement), don't you think it deserves some attention, instead of combating it?