I personally think it's good to call out arguments that we disagree with, that are imprecise, or irrelevant.

Not as pressing in this case but elsewhere if you leave those arguments uncriticized it gives those you are arguing against more leverage in the form of things they can point out.

It's important we hold people to high standards

What if its totally irrelevant to the larger issue and the nitpicking of minor parts of an article are just used to distract and diffuse any conversation actual issues?

You presume to tell others how to arrange their priorities? Very well. I will say that you are wrong. It is a fine priority to defend people from unfair jabs and accusations. These attacks damage the quality of our public discourse, which is in bad enough shape already.

You will find no shortage of fair jabs and meaningful accusations to be aired in the matter of WeWork. They are scathing enough on their own. Random sniping about T-shirt quality detracts from the points that matter.

Thank you. Letting rhetoric slip into the mud hasn't served other platforms for discourse well recently (exhibit a: politics).

Taking a jab at clothing generally is so low effort to be actually embarrassing and will invalidate anything else that you are trying to say. IMO.

Taking some comedic/low effort jabs should not invalidate from one's main (and valid) arguments. IMO.

Else it's low effort on the listener's part.

"comedic"

Well, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die".

I'm amazed that the focus is on the author calling a t-shirt "ill-fitting" instead of calling Neumann a liar and a thief.

Apparently, Neumann's fashion sense is more defensible than his personal integrity.

>fashion sense is more defensible than [...] personal integrity.

You take issue with this?

This is just one thread... look at the rest of the discussion.

What is more embarrassing is picking one statement in huge article and getting hung up on it? As a writer certain things make stylistically sense perhaps only to the author, but that is one substantive article about the state of Capital markets and "Captains" of New Industry.

We're not under any time pressure in this discussion; there's no need to prioritize. Pointing out "low blows" which and writer should strive to be above is pressing, in my opinion.

That's not at all a low blow. It's pointing out one of the many signaling methods this conman used to swindle investors "look at me, I make no sense because I'm so unconventional..."

It's crazy to me that a forum full of the self proclaimed intellectual elites can't get the meaning of that sentence without a full blown explanation.

Ah, I see your point. That is deceptive; I thought it was just generic vitriol.

As for me I only _dream_ of dwelling amongst the ranks of the Valley's intelligentsia... many years to go before I proclaim myself a bonafide intellectual elite.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If those are still "on the margins of deciding who's right" on such a clear cut case, then they're a lost cause anyway...

So you don't care about convincing people, that's fine, but just realize that you're doing your own causes no favors by not caring about how you make your arguments.