[sebastien_b]

Then they should really think about how they phrase their intentions.

To me, this read like someone at a congressional hearing asking "Why are you against protecting children from predators?" to a witness opposing something on totally different grounds (ie. being needlessly confrontational from the get-go).

[nostrademons]

It's more like PG saying at AirBnB's interview: "People actually let strangers stay in their homes? What's wrong with them?"

It's a zinger and a challenge to the person making the claims. Some people will be turned off by that and refuse to engage. In the particular domain that YCombinator and Bridgewater are working in - finding undervalued opportunities that everybody else is overlooking - this is a feature, not a bug. Anyone who's turned off by a simple offhand zinger or personal attack is not going to have the strength of their convictions when everybody is attacking them, which is usually what happens when you sincerely hold very unorthodox beliefs.

[Matticus_Rex]

Bridgewater doesn't need to convince their audience of their credibility. They're consistently one of the most profitable investment firms in the world. If they were just finding an audience, it might be necessary for them to temper their phrasing, but from their position it may be valuable to be intentionally provocative.