Solnit’s Dark View of Tech Buses Gets Slammed

Tech Crash by Erno Raitanen

Christian Nicholson describes himself in his Bold Italic bio as “Raised in the West. Educated at Deep Springs. Working in tech.”

His essay in The Bold Italic begins:

As a member of the invasive species that Rebecca Solnit has repeatedly singled out, the tech worker, I feel compelled to respond to her piece in the Feb. 20 edition of the London Review of Books, which purports to describe recent events in San Francisco.

If the publication were less respected, or the subject less inflammatory, it would hardly be worth debunking. But Solnit’s “Diary” entry is a deeply misleading account, which will leave the world a little more confused about what’s going on here, and very much mistaken as to the motives and actions of the players. READ MORE.

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

You may also like:


  1. John

    Yeah, Solnit got owned here. Can’t say she didn’t deserve it.

  2. nutrisystem

    Yeah, looks like Solnit has got herself on the shitlist of our local profiteering landlords.

    Seems they don’t like a spotlight shining on their neighborhood-destroying greed.

    • John

      You know, the first piece or two was fair enough. But the likes of Solnit are just grandstanding on a decaying issue looking for some cheap attention via misconceived unfounded stereotypes.

      I have no respect for demonstrating a derivative lack of originality and style.

      • nutrisystem

        Solnit’s insights, historical perspective and writing style certainly put yours to shame.

        I thought the London Review piece (linked in the article above) nicely summarizes the situation, and encourage everyone to read it.

        • John

          Well you would, wouldn’t you? That adds nothing to a more honest statement that you agree with her. and in that case it doesn’t matter whether her writing is good or bad.

    • Frank

      Solnit sold her condo (or TIC) to a bus-riding, Google engineer for as much as the market would bear. Why didn’t she sell it at a below market price to a low-income, long-time Mission resident?

      Was it another example of “neighborhood-destroying greed”?

      • John

        Yeah, many of these anti-gentrification mob own real estate. Hestor, Welch, Shaw and our very own hopeless marcos all stand to profit from NIMBYism and dress their greed up in caring.

        Yet none of them offer up their homes for homeless people. Or let them out at below market rates.

        • Frank

          Homeowner and former SFBG editor, Tim Redmond, was quoted in a recent Salon article that having more homeowners in San Francisco is part of a conservative plot to destroy the city’s progressive values.

          • landline

            Isn’t that what you do? Talk a lot and declare yourself the winner of some sort of imaginary debating contest in which you are both a contestant and referee.

            I don’t know if there is an Latin phrase that translates into last wordism and verbal diarrhea aka web commentary shock and awe. two beers?

        • two beers

          John, you just love those tu quoque fallacies.

          Ooh, look! a red herring!

          • John

            And you just love using obfuscatory Latin phrases that you read somewhere. My point remains valid despite your attempt to divert.

          • two beers

            John, every one of the techniques of spurious rhetoric you regularly deploy has a specific name. If the school you claimed you studied logic at only taught you the techniques without naming them, you should sue them for malpractice. Your “logic” is ill-informed and clumsily-wielded. Your “logic” is more correctly termed, “propaganda.”

          • John

            Unfortunately, twobeers, you do not win debates by simply stating that you have won them.

            You actually have to refute my claims rather than offering nothing more than a taxonomy of alleged logical flaws.

            So, do you have anything to offer the community that is on the stated topic here? Or would you rather nitpick?

          • landline

            Isn’t that what you do? Talk a lot and declare yourself the winner of some sort of imaginary debating contest in which you are both a contestant and referee.

            I don’t know if there is an Latin phrase that translates into last wordism and verbal diarrhea aka web commentary shock and awe. two beers?

            Sorry, wrong place, first time.

          • John

            I don’t know. What Latin phrase means stalking me across multiple threads endlessly making the same personal attacks, while rarely talking about the topic?

            For someone who said I should be “ignored”, you sure do devote a lot of time and words to following me around.

          • two beers

            You lose, John.

            You are using a fallacious argument. Calling people hypocrites because they don’t meet standards you impute to them (i.e. tu quoque fallacy) isn’t a legitimate argument against their claim.

            You have no actual argument to rebut, only a laundry list of logical fallacies.

            The proper way to handle logical fallacies is to identify them, not rebut them, because there is no actual logic or substance to rebut,. There is only a spurious technique to be recognized

            But anyone who has studied logic knows this

          • landline

            You respond to almost every comment by every commenter on every topic. I wrote two on the Mission Street community meeting and you had to respond. You are the stalker with apparently some sort of OCD.

          • John

            OK, twobeers, still no serious comment on the topic then?

            Just airey pseudo-logical navel contemplation?

          • two beers

            My comment on the topic?: A friend of Peter Shih does an excellent impersonation of Tom Perkins.

            I appreciate the irony of you calling me a stalker: you account for maybe 30% of ML comments. Anyone else commenting is a stalker by default.

          • John

            twobeers, I never accused you of stalking. That’s landline.

            I do accuse you of diversionary tactics and posting off-topic. Attacking the messenger gives out the notion that you cannot refute the message.

          • two beers

            Me, diversionary? Your whole mission here has been “diversionary tactics”, to suffocate the threads of any story that exposes the consequences of the economic policies you benefit from,to attack the messenger that is ML, and to divert or simply shut down discussion of the negative consequences of gentrification.

            And you’re conflating my attack on your methods with a personal attack.

          • John

            No, twobeers, My comments are invariably on the topic of an article. Then the debate gets sidetracked because either landline counters with a personal attack or you start off with your semantics and logic diversions.

            That then compels me to respond and that is the sole reason why I end up posting more than you evidently want me to.

            It seems like you just can’t stand that someone with fairly conservative views can actually put together coherent, rational lines of debate that cannot be factually or logically countered. And yet if my views were cloyingly left-wing like yours, you’d have no issue with my posting volume.

            Oh, and ML is not a socialist website so all political outlooks are welcome here, even if you’d prefer that was not the case.

          • two beers

            John, when your weak artillery of logical fallacies is exposed, you simply to resort to hyper-exaggeration, distortions of the truth, and outright lies.

            Of course ML isn’t socialist. But ThatGuy and Bob seems to think it’s downright Stalinistic, so you might want to convey that fact to them,

            Of course different viewpoints are welcome. But you’ve turned ML into an outlet for your personal diatribes and rants. If they charged you a nickel per comment, ML could give a dozen scholarships to the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

            We see through you, John: you want to control and divert the discussion, and barring that, just shut it down with your interminable cliches.

          • John

            You confer upon me far more power and influence then I have. My presence here serves to redress what I perceive as an idelogical bias in the commentary, and to amuse myself during my working hours.

            And in fact I doubt that anyone would have thought any more about it except that you and landline appear to have an almost fetishistic obsession with following me around making baseless personal allegations.

            I do not see a single post in this thread by you that is on the topic of the article. All you have written about is me. What are readers supposed to make of that level of focus and obsession?

            If you could simply refute my points, you would. That you instead to resort to endless categorizations and speculations speaks otherwise.

          • two beers

            I confer no power on you, John, I merely identify the self-serving purpose and obnoxious methods of your mission here. I do this to counter what I perceive as your rightwing ideologically-based attempt to turn these threads into cesspools of utter banality.and boredom.

            As for the topic of this thread, again: a friend of Peter Shih does a good impression of his and your role model Tom Perkins.

          • John

            TwoBeers’ idea of being on topic is to switch from attacking me to attacking a friend of the article writer.

            Still no discussion of the topic – just an attempt to discredit the writer by association.

  3. poor.ass.millionaire


    3 words

    • John

      Solzhenitsyn, she ain’t. My favorite quote of his, and apt here, is:

      “Our envy of others devours us most of all”.

  4. Of course

    Well of course this guy work at the same place the famous Peter Shih worked. Of course.

Comments are closed.

Full name required to post. For full details, read our Policy