[hawkice]

I think reasonable people could disagree with both points you could be making here:

(1) That marijuana or payday loans are immoral.

(2) Something that is _debateably_ bad should be avoided, even if you've resolved that debate to your satisfaction.

If you reject both of those (I do), then I'm not sure what the concern is.

[throwawayknecht]

I can't speak for adnam but I would consider YC's cannabis-related investments questionable for reasons beyond just "it has to do with pot." If you are going to make your fortune selling pot, IMO you have a moral obligation to assist those (predominantly young men of color) whose lives have been ruined cracking that market for you. Meadow is just another gross Uber-esque intermediary (not to mention the YC partner working as part of the most tough-on-drugs executive branch in decades).

More generally, if you want to establish yourself as a "good person" I think you need to make the argument when you fund the thing as to why your loans aren't predatory, or your pot isn't white people getting rich on the back of black lives, or your laundry service won't leave a community unable to wash their clothes. Part of "doing good" is working with people affected to establish your bona fides. YC doesn't attempt this; they are concerned with "being good" which, as the article covers, is a semantic game that lets you justify any behavior you want.

[pjvandehaar]

> [YC] need to make the argument [that their investment in the marijuana industry] isn't white people getting rich on the back of black lives

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Which of these is your view:

1. YC/Meadow is harming black people by connecting marijuana-buyers to doctors and dispensaries.

2. YC/Meadow are more responsible for the problems caused by the marijuana industry than the rest of us, simply because they interact with it more. You're not obligated to help all those people harmed in the marijuana industry, but YC/Meadow is.

If you hold the second view, I'm curious whether you'd find this article[0] on "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" convincing. Excerpt:

> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you.

[0] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...