If You Can't Say Anything Nice, Kill Yourself(guardian.co.uk)
guardian.co.uk
If You Can't Say Anything Nice, Kill Yourself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/28/not-safe-for-work-techcrunch-arrington
16 comments
But I have to say that a lot of nastiness can come from people that are frustrated with the current coverage in the tech media, where a lot of good technologies/projects/inovative startups are being ignored.
Sounds like an opportunity for another media startup to promote ignored projects.
we still have some shameless self promoters here
So promote HG: post articles about it, etc. The good stuff will rise to the top.
Sounds like an opportunity for another media startup to promote ignored projects.
we still have some shameless self promoters here
So promote HG: post articles about it, etc. The good stuff will rise to the top.
We could, of course, start accounting for the fact that communication skills are as important as engineering skills when it comes to making a successful business... thereby taking responsibility for our own perceived problems and eliminating the frustration.
"I even know about Julia Allison , but really what has she done? Except for being a great self promoter?"
She's the Paris Hilton of the tech world.
She's the Paris Hilton of the tech world.
I am curious to see how American Internet is different from other countries in this regard. I have long had the suspicion that our love for hatred online and South Park episodes comes as a psychological defense against insane levels of in-your-face politeness, fake plastic smiles and excessive "political correctness" dominating our offline lives. Even our everyday language is affected by this: people don't die or get fired, they pass away and being let go. George Carlin said it best: soon we'll be calling a rape victim "an unwilling sperm recipient".
Perhaps the cure for online rudeness is being less hypocritical offline.
Perhaps the cure for online rudeness is being less hypocritical offline.
I find many people are against "fake politeness" just to have a reason to act like jerk when they know they can get away with it. Contrary to your opinion, there are plenty of people out there who are genuinely nice.
Plus, there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and spitting in their face or threatening physical violence. In the context of this article, I don't think the idea is that we need to avoiding offending people at all costs. It's that we tend to reward the "hate" to the exclusion of other forms of opinion and that we are quick to judge people at a superficial level based solely on what someone else heard from some blog they stumbled upon.
So basically, this isn't about political correctness at all, and looking through the article, I'm not sure how you thought it was in the first place.
Plus, there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and spitting in their face or threatening physical violence. In the context of this article, I don't think the idea is that we need to avoiding offending people at all costs. It's that we tend to reward the "hate" to the exclusion of other forms of opinion and that we are quick to judge people at a superficial level based solely on what someone else heard from some blog they stumbled upon.
So basically, this isn't about political correctness at all, and looking through the article, I'm not sure how you thought it was in the first place.
Not that this matters, but my experience agrees with your hypothesis - I try to go out of my way to avoid bullshitting people to spare their feelings in person, and I usually feel no need to attack them online.
PC and passive aggressiveness build on each other. PC builds pent up aggression, which people take out on others who are open and not PC. Now you have another emotionally repressed PC person looking for a target to release on.
Interesting question, but it's complicated by the fact that an even more polite society, Japan, is said to have an even more polite internet. More anonymity, more group bonding, more political deference, when your theory would predict the exact opposite.
Except for the anonymous super free-for-all sites, like that one where you can write over images and video. I recall reading an article about a lady celebrity there who was trying to identify people smearing her online, to sue them. (Hadn't succeeded at time of writing.)
I'm not sure that this is entirely the case. 2chan has been quite disruptive to the culture. Its enforced anonymity and subsequent freedom from personal societal retaliation is a very new phenomenon there.
Japanese people actively avoid conflict, which is certainly part of why they're always so polite.
It's an awesomely safe place, but they've got a high suicide rate and the occasional repressed salaryman on a killing spree.
It's an awesomely safe place, but they've got a high suicide rate and the occasional repressed salaryman on a killing spree.
PC is also counter to our roots. Originally, we were all about bucking conformism.
The only thing more annoying than bandwagon hatred is bandwagon altruism. What happened to Arrington sucks, but this sort of shit happens to all sorts of domain-specific personalities and famous people every day. I just don't see what this "call to action" is trying to accomplish.
People aren't going to change, most especially within mediums that provide complete anonymity. The thing, I think, that really surprises people about this is the fact that online trolling has spilled over into real life and has resulted in spitting and death threats. As I see it, the more our online and offline lives merge thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet, the more you're going to see people acting as crazy offline as on.
People aren't going to change, most especially within mediums that provide complete anonymity. The thing, I think, that really surprises people about this is the fact that online trolling has spilled over into real life and has resulted in spitting and death threats. As I see it, the more our online and offline lives merge thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet, the more you're going to see people acting as crazy offline as on.
I think it's an effort by a well-known negative personality to tell people to cut it out. I'm certain most trolls become such after a personality makes them think it's okay. And given the premise that you'll always have stupid people being uninformed, I'd rather have said stupid people not threatening people.
So cutting out criticism is the way to fix people being spit on? That's like chopping off your head when you've got a headache. The rules slay me even more:
1. So everybody is magically going to stop being anonymous in a medium that heralds anonymity above all else? Okay!
2. So we shouldn't make fun of people we don't know? Right. I make fun of people I do know, and I'm not even one of the "spitters". This one ain't gonna happen.
3. Yes, because a 1:1 ratio of nice to mean things balances out the Universe. This article is stupid; unalone, I like your hair. I mean, I can't see it, but you probably have nice hair. HARMONY!
4. Make your own judgements but trust my judgement on these rules!!
5. End the violence; kill yourself!
1. So everybody is magically going to stop being anonymous in a medium that heralds anonymity above all else? Okay!
2. So we shouldn't make fun of people we don't know? Right. I make fun of people I do know, and I'm not even one of the "spitters". This one ain't gonna happen.
3. Yes, because a 1:1 ratio of nice to mean things balances out the Universe. This article is stupid; unalone, I like your hair. I mean, I can't see it, but you probably have nice hair. HARMONY!
4. Make your own judgements but trust my judgement on these rules!!
5. End the violence; kill yourself!
Psh. People who've got something to say will say it regardless of how important it is. They won't think rules matter. The braindead people might start being nicer, though, which makes the Internet more fun for me. (Kind communities, ones where there's no moderation but only smart people appear, are so wonderful. The Truthandbeautybombs forum for webcomics is a joy to read.)
1) Anonymity hurts in most situations. I think it's good that we CAN have it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's rarely used for good.
2) I think it's more polite to make fun of people you do know. There's more a chance of you knowing that your insults are justified, then, and it's more fun.
3) I get your point, and also thank you for the kind compliment, but I think the idea is to be mean when mean is deserved, to be nice in other instances, and to try to make sure that you're never mean for stupid reasons.
1) Anonymity hurts in most situations. I think it's good that we CAN have it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's rarely used for good.
2) I think it's more polite to make fun of people you do know. There's more a chance of you knowing that your insults are justified, then, and it's more fun.
3) I get your point, and also thank you for the kind compliment, but I think the idea is to be mean when mean is deserved, to be nice in other instances, and to try to make sure that you're never mean for stupid reasons.
"...I think the idea is to be mean when mean is deserved, to be nice in other instances, and to try to make sure that you're never mean for stupid reasons."
Well, geez, why didn't he just say that?
Instead of all this arm waving and sweeping e-reform, how about just saying "use common courtesy"? All this excitement will cause high blood pressure!
P.S. You're welcome ;)
Well, geez, why didn't he just say that?
Instead of all this arm waving and sweeping e-reform, how about just saying "use common courtesy"? All this excitement will cause high blood pressure!
P.S. You're welcome ;)
I think it's because he's a very over-the-top writer. It's what makes his rants so funny. And either he's used to writing like that or he can't help himself, because he always does it.
Nerds are not used to being celebrities.
I counted the occurrences of the words "me", "my", "myself" and "I" in the article with a bash command:
tr -cs 'A-Za-z' '\n' < paul_carr.txt | grep -i -w -c "me\|my\|myself\|i"
Result: 82 out of 1858 words.
That's 4.4%, ca. 1 out of every 23 words.
The author is thereby scientifically proven to be on the very far end of the introspective scale.
tr -cs 'A-Za-z' '\n' < paul_carr.txt | grep -i -w -c "me\|my\|myself\|i"
Result: 82 out of 1858 words.
That's 4.4%, ca. 1 out of every 23 words.
The author is thereby scientifically proven to be on the very far end of the introspective scale.
[deleted]
I liked this especially: "If you've got something to say online, say it in your own name or fuck off."
I thought the point of online anonymity was that it allows people to be judged based on what they say and do, not by their name, nationality, certifications, or whatever.
Saying everybody should use their own names means you not only want to judge the opinions and actions of individuals, but you also want to judge them on a personal level, which should be irrelevant to... everything.
Before last year I never used my real name anywhere online, nor did I use a handle which contained any part of said name. I wrote no differently than I do now and still hold the same opinions I did previously. Who I am doesn't matter; it never should, here or anywhere else.
Saying everybody should use their own names means you not only want to judge the opinions and actions of individuals, but you also want to judge them on a personal level, which should be irrelevant to... everything.
Before last year I never used my real name anywhere online, nor did I use a handle which contained any part of said name. I wrote no differently than I do now and still hold the same opinions I did previously. Who I am doesn't matter; it never should, here or anywhere else.
Instead of tying a person to a handle, explicitly, each person should be restricted to a single handle in a community. If they misbehave in that community, the handle is punished. But, the person's actual identity is not affected.
Of course, restricting the number of handles per person is pretty difficult without some kind of record of their real identity. But, there's a puzzle to solve!
Of course, restricting the number of handles per person is pretty difficult without some kind of record of their real identity. But, there's a puzzle to solve!
The name is supposed to be an easy predictor of quality. There is a cognitive cost to read all these comments, you know. That's why you look at current karma of the comment and see if you recognize the nickname.
Well, you may do that, but I rarely look at the handle until after I've read a comment, and only then if I feel like making a mental note of who it was because I really like what they said or something.
I don't feel like I know many people on HN mostly because it's more of a forum for debate than for making casual banter, the latter being more conducive to personal bonding (at least to me). On old BBS I used to know a lot of folks and met many of them, mostly because we spent the majority of our time exchanging witty banter and such.
There are only a few names I recognize here, mostly because they have a tendency to reply to my own comments with some regularity or always post really insightful stuff.
I don't feel like I know many people on HN mostly because it's more of a forum for debate than for making casual banter, the latter being more conducive to personal bonding (at least to me). On old BBS I used to know a lot of folks and met many of them, mostly because we spent the majority of our time exchanging witty banter and such.
There are only a few names I recognize here, mostly because they have a tendency to reply to my own comments with some regularity or always post really insightful stuff.
I use my full name as my handle for a simple reason: I want a single identity across the Internet and the physical world. I want to be able to meet people (at conferences, coffee houses, etc) and have whatever opinion they have formed of my online persona apply immediately to me in person. I want to be one person.
Tomsa F. Fell? Is that really you? I haven't seen you since high school!
> I thought the point of online anonymity was that it allows people to be judged based on what they say and do, not by their name, nationality, certifications, or whatever.
I agree, in general, and you provided a nice argument in support of your position. Sometimes, however, you can’t help but express a strong opinion and nothing else, as I did above. Then your post shouldn’t be anonymous. Another example is when you give advice, such as in "Ask HN". Then the reader would certainly like to know your background.
I agree, in general, and you provided a nice argument in support of your position. Sometimes, however, you can’t help but express a strong opinion and nothing else, as I did above. Then your post shouldn’t be anonymous. Another example is when you give advice, such as in "Ask HN". Then the reader would certainly like to know your background.
So is "Pixcavator" your last name, or is it P. Ixcavator?
Mr. Acker, that was hardly called for. Sincerely, U. Nal One.
Okay guys, settle down.
--Steve
--Steve
Not his name; but, his profile makes it easy enough to find his name. So not a anonymous comment.
It’s an old handle. If I was to sign up today, I’d probably use my real name. I put info and links in my profile, as a compromise. -- Peter Saveliev
I ran for election last year. I plan to run again in 4 years. I can't post in my real name. While many internet posters tend to follow Gabriel's G.I.F.T., I'm not interested in doing so.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
This just in: A lot of people in the tech industry have a harder time dealing with criticism (both fair and unfair) than their counterparts in the entertainment industry. When asked for help, Hollywood said "get over it, nerds."
haven't heard many stories about celebrities being spat on lately..
No, you're right. They've only been stalked, threatened, had pictures taken of them every time they go to the beach, been the butt of jokes on TV every single night, sometimes been assaulted, kidnapped, or shot. But thankfully I can't remember any of them getting some saliva on them lately!
I'm not saying the life of a celebrity is a living hell. I'm just saying there are thousands of people who already deal with the downside of a huge audience, and tech reporters will have to learn how to do the same. That's a pain, we all wish it could be otherwise, but it's not like Michael Arrington has to put up with half the crap that anyone with a hit song or TV show goes through.
I'm not saying the life of a celebrity is a living hell. I'm just saying there are thousands of people who already deal with the downside of a huge audience, and tech reporters will have to learn how to do the same. That's a pain, we all wish it could be otherwise, but it's not like Michael Arrington has to put up with half the crap that anyone with a hit song or TV show goes through.
It isn't a celebrities job to listen to feedback from the public, so they are safe to ignore it and actively fight it as much as they want. It is the job of someone like Arrington to wade through the morass of hatefilled comments, while putting on an approachable as possible front, though. Can you see the impact is different in either case?
At least he points out some flaws in the industry and where they can be corrected. Blogging is a new industry (in some ways), and hasn't adjusted completely yet.
Newspapers took quite a long time to adjust, and libel became against criminal and civil law (although "cyberlibel" is around, there is maybe a total of 3 cases?).
Newspapers took quite a long time to adjust, and libel became against criminal and civil law (although "cyberlibel" is around, there is maybe a total of 3 cases?).
"You simply can't have a system which rewards nastiness over niceness..."
I don't think the internet is to blame, it is simply in the human nature. People bond by agreeing to hate some other people together. It is not the only way to bond, but it is a very common way.
I don't think the internet is to blame, it is simply in the human nature. People bond by agreeing to hate some other people together. It is not the only way to bond, but it is a very common way.
Something has been nagging my brain and I was trying to work out what it was. Reading this article jolted it loose.
This whole horrible situation Michael Arrington has found himself in is incredibly similar to Kathy Sierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra).
The same comments by reasonable people are being repeated about how unacceptable it is, and yet 2 years on it's happening to a different internet personality, albeit not a woman this time.
Frankly sometimes I feel like I'm a hostage of the people the democratization of web has enabled. Although, I'd still say there is much more good than bad (I'm not Andrew Keen!).
This whole horrible situation Michael Arrington has found himself in is incredibly similar to Kathy Sierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra).
The same comments by reasonable people are being repeated about how unacceptable it is, and yet 2 years on it's happening to a different internet personality, albeit not a woman this time.
Frankly sometimes I feel like I'm a hostage of the people the democratization of web has enabled. Although, I'd still say there is much more good than bad (I'm not Andrew Keen!).
So Arrington gets spat on, and everyone suddenly forgets what a giant, dripping blowhard the man is?
Hello.
Spitting on somebody is totally déclassé, and death threats are never cool, but the man is -- professionally speaking -- a bastard. That is an image he has carefully cultivated.
He may be beloved of his friends & fam, but they're not the ones spitting on him.
Hello.
Spitting on somebody is totally déclassé, and death threats are never cool, but the man is -- professionally speaking -- a bastard. That is an image he has carefully cultivated.
He may be beloved of his friends & fam, but they're not the ones spitting on him.
...Let's all of us who consider ourselves human beings and who want the internet to continue as a forum for free and frank debate get together and decide on a few rules of engagement...
This, I believe, is what HN offers me today. Cheers for that! Sometimes opposing viewpoints get downmodded to oblivion, but as I see from recent discussions, people have already started taking notice of this phenomenon [for e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=446176] and have taken it upon themselves to fix it..
This, I believe, is what HN offers me today. Cheers for that! Sometimes opposing viewpoints get downmodded to oblivion, but as I see from recent discussions, people have already started taking notice of this phenomenon [for e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=446176] and have taken it upon themselves to fix it..
Problem is: ugly sells
This will turn into Kathy Sierra part 2.
I really don't think so.
While Arrington is even more insufferable than Sierra, he is an expert in the mechanics of trolling. He knows what he's doing: he's judged that the hype-value of publicising his detractors outweighs the foolishness of feeding the trolls, and I think he's probably right.
He's not going to get taken hook, line, and sinker like Kathy Sierra did. She managed to prove her attackers correct (at least regarding her incompetence) in her reaction to them. That is the real lesson of the Kathy Sierra debacle, and why it is one of the most epic trolls of all time.
While Arrington is even more insufferable than Sierra, he is an expert in the mechanics of trolling. He knows what he's doing: he's judged that the hype-value of publicising his detractors outweighs the foolishness of feeding the trolls, and I think he's probably right.
He's not going to get taken hook, line, and sinker like Kathy Sierra did. She managed to prove her attackers correct (at least regarding her incompetence) in her reaction to them. That is the real lesson of the Kathy Sierra debacle, and why it is one of the most epic trolls of all time.
Is there a reliable summary somewhere of what all happened in the Kathy Sierra incident? I mostly ignored it at the time, but now I'm curious as to how that all went down and what went wrong.
Basically a blog post was written, http://www.horsepigcow.com/2007/02/04/more-on-higher-purpose... and there was a pretty big argument started in the comment section. Kathy compared some commenters as mean kids.
Chris Locke started a website called mean kids in response to this to attack people.
Kathy received death threats. She skips a conference, and the police get involved. Soon the media picks up on the story.
part1:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-1-dissecti... part2:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-2-big-bad-... part3:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-3-who-are-... people involved:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/kathysierra
Chris Locke started a website called mean kids in response to this to attack people.
Kathy received death threats. She skips a conference, and the police get involved. Soon the media picks up on the story.
part1:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-1-dissecti... part2:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-2-big-bad-... part3:http://www.onebyonemedia.com/the-sierra-saga-part-3-who-are-... people involved:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/kathysierra
Not really, every party is an unreliable narrator!
This is undoubtedly a troll and goes way too far, but the base of his criticisms ring true: http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Full-Disclosure/2007-...
"Kathy hollers like a stuck pig as she wonders why the trolls escalated to magnitudes which she could no longer control. The answer is obvious: she fought the LOL. The LOL won. She flew off the handle trying to silence criticism of her books, and this is what she got."
This is undoubtedly a troll and goes way too far, but the base of his criticisms ring true: http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Full-Disclosure/2007-...
"Kathy hollers like a stuck pig as she wonders why the trolls escalated to magnitudes which she could no longer control. The answer is obvious: she fought the LOL. The LOL won. She flew off the handle trying to silence criticism of her books, and this is what she got."
His criticism rings true?
He claims that she came out of nowhere because she was a prostitute at O'Reilly conferences. A literal prostitute, not a metaphorical one.
That's beyond ridiculous.
How can you brush off something that bizarro and believe the rest of his rant has merit?
He claims that she came out of nowhere because she was a prostitute at O'Reilly conferences. A literal prostitute, not a metaphorical one.
That's beyond ridiculous.
How can you brush off something that bizarro and believe the rest of his rant has merit?
For starters, the literal and metaphorical are not mutually exclusive. He literally (in the text) said she "got the train run on her", and in the context of an outrageous troll it's a metaphor for her vapid self-promotion and the co-dependent nature of the 'tech' conference presenter scene.
She's supposedly a programmer, but she made a career out of giving the same tacky clipart presentations about generic PR & Marketing bullshit over and over. She fit right into the circle-jerk with Scoble et. al.. Some people found her constant paid presence at the conferences they went to obnoxious and wished she'd STFU, so they started griefing her. She was egotistical enough to think that anyone cared enough about hating her to make those "death threats" remotely meaningful, and she did exactly what they wanted.
She's supposedly a programmer, but she made a career out of giving the same tacky clipart presentations about generic PR & Marketing bullshit over and over. She fit right into the circle-jerk with Scoble et. al.. Some people found her constant paid presence at the conferences they went to obnoxious and wished she'd STFU, so they started griefing her. She was egotistical enough to think that anyone cared enough about hating her to make those "death threats" remotely meaningful, and she did exactly what they wanted.
My background: I have spoken at OSCON, SXSW, Webstock, RailsConf, and more -- venues shared with Kathy Sierra -- and I have been an OSCON organizer, and I was behind the creation of the new "People" track. I am a programmer, and a usability expert.
Allow me to respond to your points:
A) she doesn't pretend to speak as a programmer
B) her stuff is not generic PR & marketing, it's about user engagement and results in concrete recommendations about the business of building software, AND
C) she cites psychological research, not marketing handbooks (she's pretty damn current too, the lady does her homework)
D) she doesn't name drop or publicity whore, podcast, screencast, chum up to people for photos or videos, or write product reviews (unlike Scobl
E) she actually made her career with the invention of the redonkulously succcessful Head First book series, and that is why she is paid to speak -- tech books sell like ass... except hers (and Missing Manual, another O'Reilly line)
F) Her talks are a bit repetitive, but I wasn't aware that giving the same talk (slightly updated) a few different times was reason for death threats to be acceptable.
Would I have reacted in the same manner?
No, but then again, I'm not Kathy Sierra, I am a 24-year-old girl who grew up online, and don't even have a hamster to worry about much less a teenaged daughter.
I simply cannot fathom the ridiculousness of accusing Kathy of "vapid self-promotion" (totally unfounded) and basically suggesting that she was asking for it.
It has "socially disabled adolescent boy" written all over it. Just like the original "griefing" and threats.
Allow me to respond to your points:
A) she doesn't pretend to speak as a programmer
B) her stuff is not generic PR & marketing, it's about user engagement and results in concrete recommendations about the business of building software, AND
C) she cites psychological research, not marketing handbooks (she's pretty damn current too, the lady does her homework)
D) she doesn't name drop or publicity whore, podcast, screencast, chum up to people for photos or videos, or write product reviews (unlike Scobl
E) she actually made her career with the invention of the redonkulously succcessful Head First book series, and that is why she is paid to speak -- tech books sell like ass... except hers (and Missing Manual, another O'Reilly line)
F) Her talks are a bit repetitive, but I wasn't aware that giving the same talk (slightly updated) a few different times was reason for death threats to be acceptable.
Would I have reacted in the same manner?
No, but then again, I'm not Kathy Sierra, I am a 24-year-old girl who grew up online, and don't even have a hamster to worry about much less a teenaged daughter.
I simply cannot fathom the ridiculousness of accusing Kathy of "vapid self-promotion" (totally unfounded) and basically suggesting that she was asking for it.
It has "socially disabled adolescent boy" written all over it. Just like the original "griefing" and threats.
she cites psychological research -- except that it's the Gladwell/Surowiecki affirmative self-help for New Yorker readers kind of research.
She is certainly nowhere near as bad as Scoble: only Winer can keep him company in the innermost circle of blog hell.
I had totally erased that damn Head First Design Patterns book from my memory, maybe she does belong in an inner circle of hell...
She is certainly nowhere near as bad as Scoble: only Winer can keep him company in the innermost circle of blog hell.
I had totally erased that damn Head First Design Patterns book from my memory, maybe she does belong in an inner circle of hell...
> * except that it's the Gladwell/Surowiecki affirmative self-help for New Yorker readers*
I'd like to see you back that statement up.
I subscribe to the cogsci, psych, creativity, metaphor and memory journals online. I know what stuff she cites.
I'd like to see you back that statement up.
I subscribe to the cogsci, psych, creativity, metaphor and memory journals online. I know what stuff she cites.
For what it's worth, the origin of "griefing" is not found in the value (or lack thereof) of a person's conference talks.
If that were the case, then just about every conference speaker would get "griefed" this way, because speakers are uniformly unprepared, unrehearsed, completely unaware of the separation of "What I want to say" and "what my audience wants to hear," incapable of making it 3 sentences without stuttering, couldn't design a legible slide to save their hides, and leave the audience wondering where the hell their 45 minutes have gone.
It is arrogance, it is disrespect, and it is absolutely fucking unprofessional. It's also universal.
No, it comes from a feeling of insecurity.
You get somebody towards whom "everyone" feels warmly disposed (like Kathy), and the people on the fringes -- who feel their own brilliance is being ignored -- hate this interloper, who adds no value, who isn't even one of us for fuck's sake! And people like him/her! Act as if they are god's gift to whatever!
Out comes the viciousness.
I've experienced this myself.
I've never received death threats, but I did have my own personal troll, who'd come into the framework IRC channel and flood it with nasty, nasty things, making it impossible for me or anyone else to hold a conversation, and photoshop my pictures in rude ways.
I know who did it -- prominent people.
These were smart, smart guys. They had a lot going for them. But in their eyes, it was a valuable use of their time to harrass a 20yo girl who wrote some tutorials that people loved.
You have to question the ultimate utility of a person who'd rather harrass some person who's off doing his/her own thing, rather than creating more great shit.
Now me, I am nothing if not ballsy. I know who these people are, but I never bothered to tell them I knew. Now they both treat me with respect, even like me and use my ideas for their stuff. All the while, I quietly prove that I am the better man.
But I do not think that being ballsy makes me a better person than someone who is not ballsy.
If that were the case, then just about every conference speaker would get "griefed" this way, because speakers are uniformly unprepared, unrehearsed, completely unaware of the separation of "What I want to say" and "what my audience wants to hear," incapable of making it 3 sentences without stuttering, couldn't design a legible slide to save their hides, and leave the audience wondering where the hell their 45 minutes have gone.
It is arrogance, it is disrespect, and it is absolutely fucking unprofessional. It's also universal.
No, it comes from a feeling of insecurity.
You get somebody towards whom "everyone" feels warmly disposed (like Kathy), and the people on the fringes -- who feel their own brilliance is being ignored -- hate this interloper, who adds no value, who isn't even one of us for fuck's sake! And people like him/her! Act as if they are god's gift to whatever!
Out comes the viciousness.
I've experienced this myself.
I've never received death threats, but I did have my own personal troll, who'd come into the framework IRC channel and flood it with nasty, nasty things, making it impossible for me or anyone else to hold a conversation, and photoshop my pictures in rude ways.
I know who did it -- prominent people.
These were smart, smart guys. They had a lot going for them. But in their eyes, it was a valuable use of their time to harrass a 20yo girl who wrote some tutorials that people loved.
You have to question the ultimate utility of a person who'd rather harrass some person who's off doing his/her own thing, rather than creating more great shit.
Now me, I am nothing if not ballsy. I know who these people are, but I never bothered to tell them I knew. Now they both treat me with respect, even like me and use my ideas for their stuff. All the while, I quietly prove that I am the better man.
But I do not think that being ballsy makes me a better person than someone who is not ballsy.
"You get somebody towards whom "everyone" feels warmly disposed (like Kathy), and the people on the fringes -- who feel their own brilliance is being ignored -- hate this interloper, who adds no value, who isn't even one of us for fuck's sake! And people like him/her! Act as if they are god's gift to whatever!"
You understand!
You're right that the attacks come from insecurity -- but the insecurity is not rooted in "I'm being ignored", it's "the emperor has no clothes!". They can't see a way to make an honest non-anon criticism: the target wouldn't accept it, and the fawning crowd would lynch him. "How the hell is this person ever going to find out that not everyone thinks they're hot shit?" races through their feverish mind. Taking a few seconds to send them some anonymous vitriol will sure alert them to the fact that they are pissing someone off!
You understand!
You're right that the attacks come from insecurity -- but the insecurity is not rooted in "I'm being ignored", it's "the emperor has no clothes!". They can't see a way to make an honest non-anon criticism: the target wouldn't accept it, and the fawning crowd would lynch him. "How the hell is this person ever going to find out that not everyone thinks they're hot shit?" races through their feverish mind. Taking a few seconds to send them some anonymous vitriol will sure alert them to the fact that they are pissing someone off!
You realize that it's only in the insecure attacker's mind that the target of the abuse thinks she is untouchably hot shit, right?
Only weaklings think they need to go around reminding other people that they are not gods, because the weaklings believe they themselves are the rightful gods.
Otherwise they wouldn't be intimidated by it.
Or think that somebody died & appointed them Head of the De-Godding Squad.
(The only people I've ever met who thought it was their duty to go around telling others how good they aren't? Insecure assholes.)
Only weaklings think they need to go around reminding other people that they are not gods, because the weaklings believe they themselves are the rightful gods.
Otherwise they wouldn't be intimidated by it.
Or think that somebody died & appointed them Head of the De-Godding Squad.
(The only people I've ever met who thought it was their duty to go around telling others how good they aren't? Insecure assholes.)
You mention they are smart people. Do you mean there is a utilitarian motive to griefing, at least in the large scale cases? Effective trolling seems to efficiently polarize issues. When something is polarized it becomes much more discrete and easier to manage. That's why partisan politics do better than third options or bipartisanship.
What "issue" do you think they could be "polarizing", given my description above?
That comment was aimed at a general purpose behind trolling. As for Kathy Sierra I don't know anything the issue, but I can make up something.
Say these people represent the status quo for tutorials. Sierra starts a whole new way of doing tutorials. What she does is also create a space for other new competitors to emerge, i.e. there are now a number of new ideas that can be combined in unique ways. This threatens to take even more market share from the original publishers. So, they polarize public opinion in regard to Sierra and her detractors. Now, no one looks at combining ideas from either party, just one or the other. Emerging market effectively eliminated. Additionally, the emerging market can no longer give momentum to Sierra's efforts. So, this indirectly damages Sierra's market too.
Say these people represent the status quo for tutorials. Sierra starts a whole new way of doing tutorials. What she does is also create a space for other new competitors to emerge, i.e. there are now a number of new ideas that can be combined in unique ways. This threatens to take even more market share from the original publishers. So, they polarize public opinion in regard to Sierra and her detractors. Now, no one looks at combining ideas from either party, just one or the other. Emerging market effectively eliminated. Additionally, the emerging market can no longer give momentum to Sierra's efforts. So, this indirectly damages Sierra's market too.
"I don't know anything the issue, but I can make up something."
Glad to hear it.
Glad to hear it.
"But in their eyes, it was a valuable use of their time to harrass a 20yo girl"
Ah, out comes the "girl card". I instantly understand why you were trolled, then. Demanding special treatment because of gender or race is an excellent way to inspire animosity and often leads to attacks back along the same lines by which you claim exceptionality.
Ah, out comes the "girl card". I instantly understand why you were trolled, then. Demanding special treatment because of gender or race is an excellent way to inspire animosity and often leads to attacks back along the same lines by which you claim exceptionality.
Mentioning that she's a girl isn't demanding special treatment.
Some people do have a problem with girls. You do know that "troll" is a bad thing, right?
Some people do have a problem with girls. You do know that "troll" is a bad thing, right?
So why say it then? There is no other credible reason to mention her gender like that. It's a plea to victimhood, consciously or not I can't say. If you have a plausible alternative explanation to why someone would emphasise their minority status when complaining about being mistreated in some way, I'm all ears.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "trolling" so I can't say whether I agree or not. I suppose that if you define trolling as "saying bad things" then yeah, it's a bad thing. I suspect, though, that whether something is a troll or not is largely in the eye of the beholder. Many Christians probably consider the "There is probably no God" bus stickers to be a highly offensive troll, but I don't think they're "bad" at all.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "trolling" so I can't say whether I agree or not. I suppose that if you define trolling as "saying bad things" then yeah, it's a bad thing. I suspect, though, that whether something is a troll or not is largely in the eye of the beholder. Many Christians probably consider the "There is probably no God" bus stickers to be a highly offensive troll, but I don't think they're "bad" at all.
> So why say [girl] then?
Because it helped identify something about the troll, namely it's one who has a problem with women. And it outed someone who seems to think that that's okay.
As the man says, here's your sign.
Because it helped identify something about the troll, namely it's one who has a problem with women. And it outed someone who seems to think that that's okay.
As the man says, here's your sign.
Dude, if I wanted to plea for victimhood, I've got a lot better cards to pull than the girl card.
Here is why I brought it up, and it had nothing to do with playing the victim:
The "men" who attack people like me and Kathy Sierra are intimidated and disgusted by the fact that it is useless, artsy fartsy, outsider women who are getting so much attention. And so their trolling is evident of this, because it is of a disgustingly sexual nature.
They think they are vastly superior to us, but they can't think of any better way to attack us than flooding programming IRC channels with speculations about the viscosity & odor of our sexual juices (me) or Photoshopping us being strangled by a pair of women's panties (Kathy Sierra).
Certainly those beta males don't seem to understand this, but that kind of trolling doesn't make them look powerful, it typifies their weakness and demonstrates that they are afraid of women and don't understand the nature of real power.
And saying I'm playing the girl card and pleaing to victimhood just because I mention the very relevant fact of my gender, on a forum that is almost entirely male... well, let me know the next time somebody claims you fucked an entire conference -- hey, cumdumpster, how's it feel? -- and that's why people read your blog.
Anyway, I don't in general agree with crying "sexism"[1], but sometimes the shoe fits.
And I don't think anybody is in my way, stopping me from being the best I want to be, blah blah blah. But they are still obnoxious, insecure little sexist fucks.
[1] Hey, look, here's an essay I wrote for O'Reilly about this! http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/womenintech/2007/09/12/i-don...
Here is why I brought it up, and it had nothing to do with playing the victim:
The "men" who attack people like me and Kathy Sierra are intimidated and disgusted by the fact that it is useless, artsy fartsy, outsider women who are getting so much attention. And so their trolling is evident of this, because it is of a disgustingly sexual nature.
They think they are vastly superior to us, but they can't think of any better way to attack us than flooding programming IRC channels with speculations about the viscosity & odor of our sexual juices (me) or Photoshopping us being strangled by a pair of women's panties (Kathy Sierra).
Certainly those beta males don't seem to understand this, but that kind of trolling doesn't make them look powerful, it typifies their weakness and demonstrates that they are afraid of women and don't understand the nature of real power.
And saying I'm playing the girl card and pleaing to victimhood just because I mention the very relevant fact of my gender, on a forum that is almost entirely male... well, let me know the next time somebody claims you fucked an entire conference -- hey, cumdumpster, how's it feel? -- and that's why people read your blog.
Anyway, I don't in general agree with crying "sexism"[1], but sometimes the shoe fits.
And I don't think anybody is in my way, stopping me from being the best I want to be, blah blah blah. But they are still obnoxious, insecure little sexist fucks.
[1] Hey, look, here's an essay I wrote for O'Reilly about this! http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/womenintech/2007/09/12/i-don...
"She fought the LOL. The LOL won"
I like it, good for a snorg tee
I like it, good for a snorg tee
What a bunch of senseless drama.
I wish people would stop thinking this is new just because this time, it's on the internet.
Tales of loss and tragedy inspire more interest than tales of gain and happy occurances. This has always been so.
Anonymity inspires hatred, violence, and depersonalization. Being around other people who are hating, being violent, and depersonalizing others confirms this behavior. Countless -- old, pre-internet -- psychology studies and case studies show this.
It doesn't have to be online.
Intentionally overcoming it is good for everyone. But. It's just the nature of the human beast.
And this Paul Carr dude is trolling - again - with this article, because he knows negativity sells.
And maybe he feels guilty about everyone thinking he's an asshole, but it's A) clearly his own fault and B) a habit he can't kick, because even this article has the same tone to it.
Tales of loss and tragedy inspire more interest than tales of gain and happy occurances. This has always been so.
Anonymity inspires hatred, violence, and depersonalization. Being around other people who are hating, being violent, and depersonalizing others confirms this behavior. Countless -- old, pre-internet -- psychology studies and case studies show this.
It doesn't have to be online.
Intentionally overcoming it is good for everyone. But. It's just the nature of the human beast.
And this Paul Carr dude is trolling - again - with this article, because he knows negativity sells.
And maybe he feels guilty about everyone thinking he's an asshole, but it's A) clearly his own fault and B) a habit he can't kick, because even this article has the same tone to it.
Quick comment: people in the future will look back upon 1980-2009 as a barbaric era of unbelievable interpersonal nastiness. The truth about the matter is more complicated. We're not really meaner than people of prior eras-- in fact, we've made a lot of progress as private individuals on racial/gender attitudes, even while social infrastructure has decayed-- but certain crass and mean elements of our society (casual sex, classism, internet harassment, homophobia and racism, so-called "irony", a heartless health insurance system) are being expressed loudly right now.
Although we won't, at bottom, see the economic privations of the 1930s, 2001-2009(?) will be remembered as a difficult decade during which the future of civil society seemed uncertain. The 2000s have seemed like only a so-so decade to us, just as the 1930s appear to have been horrific in retrospect (people starved? no way!) but were still better, materially, than the 1900s and 1910s.
The reason I predict an imminent and rather abrupt end to the "nasty era" is obvious. The people in charge of it have fallen from grace rather decisively, and we have a brilliant, inspiring president whose character is excellent by any standard, and downright heroic in comparison to what we've come to expect, and whose ascension represents a degree of triumph over centuries of racial bigotry.
Although we won't, at bottom, see the economic privations of the 1930s, 2001-2009(?) will be remembered as a difficult decade during which the future of civil society seemed uncertain. The 2000s have seemed like only a so-so decade to us, just as the 1930s appear to have been horrific in retrospect (people starved? no way!) but were still better, materially, than the 1900s and 1910s.
The reason I predict an imminent and rather abrupt end to the "nasty era" is obvious. The people in charge of it have fallen from grace rather decisively, and we have a brilliant, inspiring president whose character is excellent by any standard, and downright heroic in comparison to what we've come to expect, and whose ascension represents a degree of triumph over centuries of racial bigotry.
Can the person who downvoted me please criticize my post with a reply? I thought it was pretty solid.
Feel free to downvote this post as well. Take it all the way to -50 if you care. Just let me know why, ok?
Feel free to downvote this post as well. Take it all the way to -50 if you care. Just let me know why, ok?
The idea that Bush caused internet incivility is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen attributed to Bush in a long line of stupid accusations.
(I'm not saying they were all stupid, but there sure were a lot of stupid ones.)
The internet was uncivil before Bush, the internet will be uncivil after Bush, and if Obama gives a speech tomorrow directly exhorting people to be more civil on the internet it won't do a damn thing, because the internet takes absolutely none of its tone from the US President.
Drink a little less of the Kool-Aid, OK?
(I'm not saying they were all stupid, but there sure were a lot of stupid ones.)
The internet was uncivil before Bush, the internet will be uncivil after Bush, and if Obama gives a speech tomorrow directly exhorting people to be more civil on the internet it won't do a damn thing, because the internet takes absolutely none of its tone from the US President.
Drink a little less of the Kool-Aid, OK?
Bush is a symptom of the social illness more broadly described as the "neoconservative era" that began around 1980. The man himself had almost nothing to do with inciting internet incivility (aside from sometimes being a target of it) but certain civil erosions ushered in by the 1980s did.
You're being USA-centric when dealing with the global phenomenon that is the Internet. Neither Bush (nor Obama) will ever be be a symptom of anything of that magnitude.
I'll down-mod you not because I disagree, but because your reasoning is incomplete and one-sided.
I'll down-mod you not because I disagree, but because your reasoning is incomplete and one-sided.
It's not grammatically correct to put (nor) in parenthesis, because it makes your non-parenthetical statement grammatically incorrect.
I think it's more important that his argument is encouraging discussion. He's not trolling. He's stating his beliefs. That's worth an upvote. He's wrong and he's not arguing well but he's genuinely trying to contribute.
EDIT: And apparently, defending somebody else who has an earnest opinion and making a friendly grammar statement regarding a tricky bit of language is worth downvotes too. I'm sorry. :-(
I think it's more important that his argument is encouraging discussion. He's not trolling. He's stating his beliefs. That's worth an upvote. He's wrong and he's not arguing well but he's genuinely trying to contribute.
EDIT: And apparently, defending somebody else who has an earnest opinion and making a friendly grammar statement regarding a tricky bit of language is worth downvotes too. I'm sorry. :-(
Probably the last bit talking about how you think Obama is awesome. (I didn't downvote you, btw, just my guess.) Also possibly mentioning casual sex in the same category as bigotry.
It went somewhat over the top, and presented your comment in a light that made it seem very biased and unprofessional. That completely eradicated the point you were trying to make early on.
Professionalism certainly isn't a requirement for posting, but a clear bias will make downvotes a lot more likely.
It went somewhat over the top, and presented your comment in a light that made it seem very biased and unprofessional. That completely eradicated the point you were trying to make early on.
Professionalism certainly isn't a requirement for posting, but a clear bias will make downvotes a lot more likely.
I have no idea whether or not Obama will be a great president, though I suspect he will. What makes him unusual, if not earth-shaking, as far as successful politicians go, is that he seems to be a truly great human being. I'm not pol-bashing; I don't think most of them are bad people. I just don't think many of them are great people either.
Casual sex is an example of the crudeness and nastiness of the current era, and I cited it as such.
Bigotry is much less appropriate as an example of the Reagan-through-Bush-2 era's nastiness, because even though it's a lot more evil than casual sex, it's been a problem more or less throughout this country's history.
Casual sex is an example of the crudeness and nastiness of the current era, and I cited it as such.
Bigotry is much less appropriate as an example of the Reagan-through-Bush-2 era's nastiness, because even though it's a lot more evil than casual sex, it's been a problem more or less throughout this country's history.
You asked for reasons why you got downvoted, which is what you got. Your reasons for posting those were fairly clear, the issue is that people disagree with you.
I certainly don't see casual sex as being an example of "nastiness" or "evil", and it may be that this is what most downvoters are taking offense to.
Plus, it's off-topic. The article is about being rude, callous, and insensitive towards others. Specifically, about the hypocrisy and cowardice involved in doing so anonymously. Your post was both off-topic and (potentially) offensive, and as such you're getting hit with two different sticks.
I certainly don't see casual sex as being an example of "nastiness" or "evil", and it may be that this is what most downvoters are taking offense to.
Plus, it's off-topic. The article is about being rude, callous, and insensitive towards others. Specifically, about the hypocrisy and cowardice involved in doing so anonymously. Your post was both off-topic and (potentially) offensive, and as such you're getting hit with two different sticks.
While I don't agree with all his opinions, it is definitely not off topic. Plus, he should not be downvoted because he thinks casual sex is emotionally destructive. That, in fact, ties into his broader point. He thinks Obama will ease the polarization that leads to so many vehement disagreements, which he thinks bleed over to the online world. This goes hand in hand with the other poster's highly upvoted comment about PCness breeding repressed anger that is expressed online, of which the downvoting due to offense is a symptom.
He thinks Obama will ease the polarization that leads to so many vehement disagreements, which he thinks bleed over to the online world.
I think a lot of the nastiness will fade away, and we'll have a lot more pragmatic disagreements, and fewer mean-spirited, petty ones.
Disagreement over bailout plans and solutions to economic problems is healthy. Impeaching a president over personal behavior (as caddish and comdemnable as that personal behavior was) is not good for the country.
I think a lot of the nastiness will fade away, and we'll have a lot more pragmatic disagreements, and fewer mean-spirited, petty ones.
Disagreement over bailout plans and solutions to economic problems is healthy. Impeaching a president over personal behavior (as caddish and comdemnable as that personal behavior was) is not good for the country.
> I think a lot of the nastiness will fade away
Why? Will the folks who hated Bush become nice? Will the folks who supported him become nice?
Are you arguing that Obama's election obligates his opponents to behave differently than Bush's elections obligated his opponents?
What goes around, comes around. Reap and sow.
Why? Will the folks who hated Bush become nice? Will the folks who supported him become nice?
Are you arguing that Obama's election obligates his opponents to behave differently than Bush's elections obligated his opponents?
What goes around, comes around. Reap and sow.
Casual sex is an example of the crudeness and nastiness of the current era
Have sex with friendlier girls.
Seriously though how is that an example of it?
Have sex with friendlier girls.
Seriously though how is that an example of it?
and people call me a troll. :-p
casual sex is awesome. although it does get old. but even then it's awesome. I'd rather have casual sex than a meaningful cheeseburger.
casual sex is awesome. although it does get old. but even then it's awesome. I'd rather have casual sex than a meaningful cheeseburger.
Hookup-style casual sex is the ruination of unwilling participants' future romantic partners... unless you like dropping pens in coffee mugs.
Ok, that comment was crass and bitter... but seriously: I don't think anyone should have sex with a partner who doesn't put the other person's emotional well-being at the same level of concern as his or her own.
Ok, that comment was crass and bitter... but seriously: I don't think anyone should have sex with a partner who doesn't put the other person's emotional well-being at the same level of concern as his or her own.
Our society encourages freedom of choice. That's a bad thing?
I don't drink, don't party, most likely will never like casual sex. But I know people who do, and they like it well enough.
I upvoted you here, since you're not being inflammatory and you're contributing to a discussion, but I also think you're wrong. Society is changing. Social attitudes towards sex never stay the same from generation to generation. It's each individual's choice to participate, though, and that individual freedom matters.
I don't drink, don't party, most likely will never like casual sex. But I know people who do, and they like it well enough.
I upvoted you here, since you're not being inflammatory and you're contributing to a discussion, but I also think you're wrong. Society is changing. Social attitudes towards sex never stay the same from generation to generation. It's each individual's choice to participate, though, and that individual freedom matters.
At a certain point, free choice is unmaintainable. People obviously have to be self controlled in their personal lives. Since our personal lives affect each other, the need for self control must extend to the society as well.
How is free choice unmaintainable? There are people of both genders who like casual sex. Am I missing something?
Casual sex is disastrous for society. You are at a high enough social strata where you are not affected, but it has decimated the inner cities. time_management wrote an excellent comment describing how monogamous relationships are key for civilization:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=457614
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=457614
Even people who enjoy casual sex don't enjoy a history of casual sex in previous partners, and those who don't enjoy or do it disapprove even more. No one wants his or her kids to have a parent who slutted it up during college.
I'm all for "free love", so long as it's actually love and not lust or something worse.
I'm all for "free love", so long as it's actually love and not lust or something worse.
> Even people who enjoy casual sex don't enjoy a history of casual sex in previous partners
I learned a long time ago to not tell other people what they enjoyed, wanted, etc.
I learned a long time ago to not tell other people what they enjoyed, wanted, etc.
[deleted]
> I don't think anyone should have sex with a partner who doesn't put the other person's emotional well-being at the same level of concern as his or her own.
(1) What does that have to do with casual sex?
(2) Why do you think that that is new?
(1) What does that have to do with casual sex?
(2) Why do you think that that is new?
The lumping of casual sex in with the other things is a bit much. It doesn't make sense and comes across as a moral judgement that you're making on other people that aren't out to hurt someone.
> What makes [Obama] unusual, if not earth-shaking, as far as successful politicians go, is that he seems to be a truly great human being.
Obama's being a great human being can't possibly have the effects that you're predicting. That's not to say that he's bad. (Although the evidence for "great" is lacking.) Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick couldn't do those things.
That leaves us with a choice between "fanboy", "confused", and "troll".[1]
Which of them is a reason to upvoting your comments?
Me - I'm going with fanboy because I like to think the best of others.
[1] Your extended comments about casual sex confirm that those are the likely possibilities. In other news, nothing that you cited as "80s and later" actually started or even changed then. Digital watches are cool, but people haven't changed.
Obama's being a great human being can't possibly have the effects that you're predicting. That's not to say that he's bad. (Although the evidence for "great" is lacking.) Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick couldn't do those things.
That leaves us with a choice between "fanboy", "confused", and "troll".[1]
Which of them is a reason to upvoting your comments?
Me - I'm going with fanboy because I like to think the best of others.
[1] Your extended comments about casual sex confirm that those are the likely possibilities. In other news, nothing that you cited as "80s and later" actually started or even changed then. Digital watches are cool, but people haven't changed.
Obama's being a great human being can't possibly have the effects that you're predicting.
I think an inspirational leader like Kennedy or Obama can inspire people greatly to better themselves, and this inspiration has all sorts of ripple effects. A mustard seed, if you will. Finally we have a president whom, if I had kids, I would consider to be a decent role model for them to aspire to be like.
I think an inspirational leader like Kennedy or Obama can inspire people greatly to better themselves, and this inspiration has all sorts of ripple effects. A mustard seed, if you will. Finally we have a president whom, if I had kids, I would consider to be a decent role model for them to aspire to be like.
> I think an inspirational leader like Kennedy or Obama can inspire people greatly to better themselves, and this inspiration has all sorts of ripple effects.
I'm willing to believe that you do think that. One of my points is that it doesn't actually happen. (Another is that your "since 1980s" claims are completely wrong.) Self-delusion is one of the most important human impulses and I'm not suggesting that you should change yours.
You do know that the 100th monkey story was just that, a story, right? That thing about Tinkerbelle also doesn't happen.
I'm willing to believe that you do think that. One of my points is that it doesn't actually happen. (Another is that your "since 1980s" claims are completely wrong.) Self-delusion is one of the most important human impulses and I'm not suggesting that you should change yours.
You do know that the 100th monkey story was just that, a story, right? That thing about Tinkerbelle also doesn't happen.
I'd say heads of state affect people. Look at how divisive people in America are because so many don't like Bush. Think that kind of tension doesn't affect people's aspirations and motivation?
Why? Because you mention casual sex and irony as something similar to racism and homophobia. I hate racism and homophobia while I don't see nothing wrong or "mean" with casual sex and irony.
My use of the word "irony" referred, in particular, to the hipster phenomenon and the general "fuck it" attitude toward life and other people. Hipster "irony" is often about making fun of the disadvantaged. It has nothing to do with literary irony.
Casual sex is not nearly as evil as racism or homophobia, I agree. I didn't intend to make comparisons in that list. But I do think casual sex is impractical, and often an expression of latent misogyny. Does casual sex necessarily lead to misogyny, erosion respect between genders, lower self-esteem among the participants, and a permanently damaged ability to form lasting love relationships? No. In practice, does it almost always produce these things? Yes. Casual sex works in theory but not in practice; humans aren't meant to have their hormone levels and emotions jacked around like that.
Casual sex is not nearly as evil as racism or homophobia, I agree. I didn't intend to make comparisons in that list. But I do think casual sex is impractical, and often an expression of latent misogyny. Does casual sex necessarily lead to misogyny, erosion respect between genders, lower self-esteem among the participants, and a permanently damaged ability to form lasting love relationships? No. In practice, does it almost always produce these things? Yes. Casual sex works in theory but not in practice; humans aren't meant to have their hormone levels and emotions jacked around like that.
My use of the word "irony" referred, in particular, to the hipster phenomenon and the general "fuck it" attitude toward life and other people.
I'm in the midst of hipster friends. That's not how it works. First off, the "fuck it" attitude stems from nihilism. Some people are nihilist, some are idealist, some are a mix. Nihilism has existed for a while: see Sex Pistols for an instance of great art stemming from nihilism, and that was before the 80s.
The idea of "hipster irony" comes not from jerkoffirony, but from a real dislike of social norms. I dunno if I've seen this stated before online, but this is how it works. You get very standard attitudes towards things. Liking Power Rangers becomes lame once you're in, say, middle school. Or listening to ABBA. At some point, a certain sort of person (I tend to identify it as the thespian crowd) decides you're allowed to say you like whatever you want. Some people get inspired by this to be honest to themselves. Other people do it ironically.
It's like the punk movement was. Then, people ripped clothes and lived like animals to oppose society. Now punk is an accepted means, and hipsterism becomes the rejection of typical bounds. That's why hipster bands so often are acoustic or electronic in callback to the 80s, why many hipster artists sound really awful (Kimya Dawson, f'rinstance). It's because 80s sounds, while lame, still sound really catchy, and sometimes a bad singer fits the song. So think of it as new-generation punk.
Hipsters wear t-shirts because they like the slogans on them. Eventually people do it just to look hip and so it becomes lame and overused, but the intent is to just do what you want to do. People miss that just like they missed what punk was about until it was accepted.
So my friends wear corduroy pants and t-shirts and big jackets and listen to Fleet Foxes and the Decemberists and even read Pitchfork. We all occasionally say things ironically. It's not this wide circlejerk. It's a bunch of smart, witty people who think it's more fun to constantly be verbally dueling than it is to spout movie quotes like the Monty Pythonites do, and who like a wide variety of stuff because it all sounds good. Hipsters are good fun people who aren't ruining society. They also have less casual sex, so that's a good thing!
I'm in the midst of hipster friends. That's not how it works. First off, the "fuck it" attitude stems from nihilism. Some people are nihilist, some are idealist, some are a mix. Nihilism has existed for a while: see Sex Pistols for an instance of great art stemming from nihilism, and that was before the 80s.
The idea of "hipster irony" comes not from jerkoffirony, but from a real dislike of social norms. I dunno if I've seen this stated before online, but this is how it works. You get very standard attitudes towards things. Liking Power Rangers becomes lame once you're in, say, middle school. Or listening to ABBA. At some point, a certain sort of person (I tend to identify it as the thespian crowd) decides you're allowed to say you like whatever you want. Some people get inspired by this to be honest to themselves. Other people do it ironically.
It's like the punk movement was. Then, people ripped clothes and lived like animals to oppose society. Now punk is an accepted means, and hipsterism becomes the rejection of typical bounds. That's why hipster bands so often are acoustic or electronic in callback to the 80s, why many hipster artists sound really awful (Kimya Dawson, f'rinstance). It's because 80s sounds, while lame, still sound really catchy, and sometimes a bad singer fits the song. So think of it as new-generation punk.
Hipsters wear t-shirts because they like the slogans on them. Eventually people do it just to look hip and so it becomes lame and overused, but the intent is to just do what you want to do. People miss that just like they missed what punk was about until it was accepted.
So my friends wear corduroy pants and t-shirts and big jackets and listen to Fleet Foxes and the Decemberists and even read Pitchfork. We all occasionally say things ironically. It's not this wide circlejerk. It's a bunch of smart, witty people who think it's more fun to constantly be verbally dueling than it is to spout movie quotes like the Monty Pythonites do, and who like a wide variety of stuff because it all sounds good. Hipsters are good fun people who aren't ruining society. They also have less casual sex, so that's a good thing!
If its about just doing what you want to do, why are people who want to be like their friends mocked? That's all hipsters are doing to, its just more convoluted.
If its about just doing what you want to do, why are people who want to be like their friends mocked?
That's something every movement has done. Thinking musically, there've been "fake rockers" and "fake punkers" and "fake rappers". In high school society there are the poser cheerleaders and the poser emo kids and the poser writers and on and on.
Hipsters mock everything. For every hipster I know, there's a great deal of cutting conversations. When I first met the group of hipsters I eventually friended, in sophomore year, I got insulted constantly and told to shut the fuck up after essentially everything I said, because I wasn't "saying the right things." Hipsters tend to always have the most comfortable niche of friends. The group I'm referring to has remained the exact same since 8th grade, adding a few people and losing practically nobody. I became "part of the group" my senior year; now I'm sitting in class next to one of those kids, and I'll likely keep in touch for a long, long time. Hipsterism is founded on diversity of interest and wit, and once those people find each other it's hard to separate them. On the flip side of that, it means they're very unwilling to expand their group, because it takes a very particular sort of person. And because their method of conversation is constantly nitpicking and criticizing, it comes across as mockery pretty easily.
"Doing what you want to do" has limitations, as does everything. It's okay to say that you cried when you read the diary of Anne Frank. It's not okay to be against homosexuality; that implies a closed mind. It's okay to be religious, not okay to be preachy about it. You can't be boring; you can't be tasteless. Taste is the tricky thing. You're allowed to be awkward, or act different from what's expected - you can cry, for instance - but you can't like bands that demonstrate tastelessness in music. (Pachebel and Nickleback are both bad.) You can't like bad movies (Plan 9 is allowed, because it's fun to watch, Mac & Me is great, but Epic Movie is a no). And while in a lot of groups taste is semi-required, in hipsterism it's all that matters.
That kinda rambled, so a summary: any hipster group is going to be closed to most outsiders, but the hipster scene is allowed to be nice and sensitive, which is a good thing.
The problem is that a lot of fakester hipsters exist, too, and it's kind of hard to tell which is which. A former friend of mine falls into the latter scene: he deliberately avoids popular music to seem edgy, insults people just to sound insulting, and wears odd clothing for no reason. The general rule of law is that if you call yourself hipster, you aren't. The people I'd call hipsters are all defined by how unhipster they are. They avoid the cliché of hipsterism. That's the point of the whole movement: you're supposed to just be yourself and do what you want, and the minute you start following trends just to be hip, you aren't. So there's where some of the mockery comes from. It's kind of like how the punks were all passionate, but their music all sounded very different. The "punk" sound really isn't. It's a washed-up, generic rip-off that ignores the rule of "be yourself." Hipsterism works the same way: the more generic it sounds, the less hip it is; the movement is about avoiding a generic center.
That's something every movement has done. Thinking musically, there've been "fake rockers" and "fake punkers" and "fake rappers". In high school society there are the poser cheerleaders and the poser emo kids and the poser writers and on and on.
Hipsters mock everything. For every hipster I know, there's a great deal of cutting conversations. When I first met the group of hipsters I eventually friended, in sophomore year, I got insulted constantly and told to shut the fuck up after essentially everything I said, because I wasn't "saying the right things." Hipsters tend to always have the most comfortable niche of friends. The group I'm referring to has remained the exact same since 8th grade, adding a few people and losing practically nobody. I became "part of the group" my senior year; now I'm sitting in class next to one of those kids, and I'll likely keep in touch for a long, long time. Hipsterism is founded on diversity of interest and wit, and once those people find each other it's hard to separate them. On the flip side of that, it means they're very unwilling to expand their group, because it takes a very particular sort of person. And because their method of conversation is constantly nitpicking and criticizing, it comes across as mockery pretty easily.
"Doing what you want to do" has limitations, as does everything. It's okay to say that you cried when you read the diary of Anne Frank. It's not okay to be against homosexuality; that implies a closed mind. It's okay to be religious, not okay to be preachy about it. You can't be boring; you can't be tasteless. Taste is the tricky thing. You're allowed to be awkward, or act different from what's expected - you can cry, for instance - but you can't like bands that demonstrate tastelessness in music. (Pachebel and Nickleback are both bad.) You can't like bad movies (Plan 9 is allowed, because it's fun to watch, Mac & Me is great, but Epic Movie is a no). And while in a lot of groups taste is semi-required, in hipsterism it's all that matters.
That kinda rambled, so a summary: any hipster group is going to be closed to most outsiders, but the hipster scene is allowed to be nice and sensitive, which is a good thing.
The problem is that a lot of fakester hipsters exist, too, and it's kind of hard to tell which is which. A former friend of mine falls into the latter scene: he deliberately avoids popular music to seem edgy, insults people just to sound insulting, and wears odd clothing for no reason. The general rule of law is that if you call yourself hipster, you aren't. The people I'd call hipsters are all defined by how unhipster they are. They avoid the cliché of hipsterism. That's the point of the whole movement: you're supposed to just be yourself and do what you want, and the minute you start following trends just to be hip, you aren't. So there's where some of the mockery comes from. It's kind of like how the punks were all passionate, but their music all sounded very different. The "punk" sound really isn't. It's a washed-up, generic rip-off that ignores the rule of "be yourself." Hipsterism works the same way: the more generic it sounds, the less hip it is; the movement is about avoiding a generic center.
Thanks, I think I get it. But, what keeps you and your friends from developing your own groupthink, which you mock in others? In my experience, "be yourself" rarely, if ever, means be yourself.
I don't know. I guess part of it is just you do what you feel is good, and you watch yourself to make sure you don't trip up. I'm probably not the best example: I unfriended every Facebook user that said they liked the book Twilight, and when I remove friends to prune my list it's always people who like Donnie Darko and Across the Universe. But that's something that I'd imagine every person comes across: it's natural to exclude people. That's not just something hipsters do. It's just that they're the ones with the most annoying tagalongs right now.
Good post. I feel like I put one in the failbox by using the word "hipster", which is vague and poorly defined. It's obvious that we're talking about different phenomena.
In New York, hipster has a pejorative connotation that goes beyond a fashion movement. It often describes jobless, parentally-funded young people who indulge in copious drugs and casual sex, usually "colonizing" formerly ethnic, working-class neighborhoods and displacing the locals with their trust funds.
I'm find with hipster fashion and music tastes. I'm actually much more "hipster" than most people my age in this regard. I just don't like the decadence that I've come to associate with the word having lived in New York. If you live on your own steam and contribute to society, I've no problem with you.
In New York, hipster has a pejorative connotation that goes beyond a fashion movement. It often describes jobless, parentally-funded young people who indulge in copious drugs and casual sex, usually "colonizing" formerly ethnic, working-class neighborhoods and displacing the locals with their trust funds.
I'm find with hipster fashion and music tastes. I'm actually much more "hipster" than most people my age in this regard. I just don't like the decadence that I've come to associate with the word having lived in New York. If you live on your own steam and contribute to society, I've no problem with you.
Casual sex works in theory but not in practice.
I suspect that your own sex life could use less theory and more practice.
I suspect that your own sex life could use less theory and more practice.
Except that "hipster irony" isn't unique to hipsters and didn't start with them.
The more that you explain, the more it seems that your whole position and conclusion depends on historical "facts" that simply aren't true.
The more that you explain, the more it seems that your whole position and conclusion depends on historical "facts" that simply aren't true.
Whatever downsides "fuck it" attitudes and casual sex might have they are not comparable to racism or homophobia in any way IMHO.
I'm sorry if you thought I was trivializing the worse evils (which are orders of magnitude worse, in this case) by listing them in conjunction with petty ones. This was not my intention at all. I see all of these social illnesses as interlinked through a root disregard for humanity, but I didn't articulate this well and seem to have unintentionally offended a lot of people. My apologies.
Don't be so moralizing, if you can't say anything nice...
Casual sex is misogynist?
You should take a good look in the mirror, mister.
You should take a good look in the mirror, mister.
It is. Men can sleep around without ill effect, but it destroys a woman emotionally. Women need the security of social stigma against cads. So, tricking women to think casual sex is good is misogynistic since it is all about using women. Certain aspects of feminism look like they were actually invented by very evil men.
Men can sleep around without ill effect? Tell that to my chlamydia infection. Ba-da-bing!
Seriously though, your observation is totally cultural and most certainly doesn't apply in the Bay Area. There's no real stigma against casual sex here and since there is a 10:1 male to female ratio, the women are totally in control. Women here have the luxury of figuring out exactly what combination of dick size, personality, paycheck and hairdo they like. The men, rather than being predatory cads, are reduced to fretting over whether or not they should get a tattoo or an $80 t-shirt in hopes of maybe possibly (probably not) attracting the attention of a google PM.
Seriously though, your observation is totally cultural and most certainly doesn't apply in the Bay Area. There's no real stigma against casual sex here and since there is a 10:1 male to female ratio, the women are totally in control. Women here have the luxury of figuring out exactly what combination of dick size, personality, paycheck and hairdo they like. The men, rather than being predatory cads, are reduced to fretting over whether or not they should get a tattoo or an $80 t-shirt in hopes of maybe possibly (probably not) attracting the attention of a google PM.
"attracting the attention of a google PM" I am sure I'm missing some cultural nuance here((Though I've lived in the USA, I've been in INdia for the last 6 years). Are Google PMs very attractive in general?
Remind me not to move to the Bay Area unless I have a girlfriend at the time.
Sex and the City bitches are disgusting. I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
Sex and the City bitches are disgusting. I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
> I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
Someone needs a double-helping of "It's not about you."
Your cocoon may work for you, but its not reality.
There's nothing wrong with being a judgemental prick, but it doesn't work well with "I'm just good-hearted and caring".
Someone needs a double-helping of "It's not about you."
Your cocoon may work for you, but its not reality.
There's nothing wrong with being a judgemental prick, but it doesn't work well with "I'm just good-hearted and caring".
Now I remember where I saw this attitude before.
"I still do look down, reflexively, upon any "profession" connected to real estate. I can honestly say I'd never marry a woman who worked in RE, and only a woman from a real estate family if she had been purified through an elite college, a filter I otherwise don't care about in the slightest."
"I still do look down, reflexively, upon any "profession" connected to real estate. I can honestly say I'd never marry a woman who worked in RE, and only a woman from a real estate family if she had been purified through an elite college, a filter I otherwise don't care about in the slightest."
Men can sleep around without ill effect, but it destroys a woman emotionally.
It destroys a lot of men emotionally, as well. It's just not healthy for anyone. The detached "alpha male" is an anachronism in civilized society, and the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac". Psychopaths (of both genders) can do it without emotional harm to themselves, and there's a much wider pool of people who are in denial about the emotional consequences... but the rest of us aren't built for that type of "relationship".
So, in truth, there are people who can have casual sex without being "destroyed", but they're rare and usually not very likeable. Most men I know who have had one-night stands regret them.
The broader issue with casual sex has nothing to do with the immediate emotional effects, but with the long-term consequences. It establishes bad emotional and physical habits, but it also makes people less desirable as marriage partners, and most people want the option, at least, to get settle down and get married one day. Most people are fine with "premarital" sex, given that we're a generation that tends to marry very late, but casual sex is an unspoken divide among young people today. We have about 40% of the population-- a relatively stable proportion across levels of socioeconomic status and education-- going off and doing this in their teens and 20s, expecting there to be no consequences because birth control "solved that". (Riiight.) Then we have a "silent majority" of about 60% who have never had casual sex, see no reason to respect it, and consider such experiences distasteful and extremely undesirable in future marriage partners. My observation is that nearly all of the marriageable women are in the latter category, and that men who have lots of casual sex in their 20s end up settling down with second-rate women when they're looking to get married. True ladies don't want to have anything to do with them. (Sorry, but it has to be said.) These are the later-in-life consequences for men who have casual sex; for women, they're probably worse.
It destroys a lot of men emotionally, as well. It's just not healthy for anyone. The detached "alpha male" is an anachronism in civilized society, and the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac". Psychopaths (of both genders) can do it without emotional harm to themselves, and there's a much wider pool of people who are in denial about the emotional consequences... but the rest of us aren't built for that type of "relationship".
So, in truth, there are people who can have casual sex without being "destroyed", but they're rare and usually not very likeable. Most men I know who have had one-night stands regret them.
The broader issue with casual sex has nothing to do with the immediate emotional effects, but with the long-term consequences. It establishes bad emotional and physical habits, but it also makes people less desirable as marriage partners, and most people want the option, at least, to get settle down and get married one day. Most people are fine with "premarital" sex, given that we're a generation that tends to marry very late, but casual sex is an unspoken divide among young people today. We have about 40% of the population-- a relatively stable proportion across levels of socioeconomic status and education-- going off and doing this in their teens and 20s, expecting there to be no consequences because birth control "solved that". (Riiight.) Then we have a "silent majority" of about 60% who have never had casual sex, see no reason to respect it, and consider such experiences distasteful and extremely undesirable in future marriage partners. My observation is that nearly all of the marriageable women are in the latter category, and that men who have lots of casual sex in their 20s end up settling down with second-rate women when they're looking to get married. True ladies don't want to have anything to do with them. (Sorry, but it has to be said.) These are the later-in-life consequences for men who have casual sex; for women, they're probably worse.
> True ladies don't want to have anything to do with them.
Keep telling yourself that.
> (Sorry, but it has to be said.)
You're not sorry at all. You have to say it so other people can see your superiority. Plus, you like saying it.
> the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac"
Wowsers.
Keep telling yourself that.
> (Sorry, but it has to be said.)
You're not sorry at all. You have to say it so other people can see your superiority. Plus, you like saying it.
> the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac"
Wowsers.
Keep telling yourself that.
I will. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't know the meaning of the word "lady". It's often an abused word, used interchangeably with "woman". A lady is a highly refined, intelligent, and cultured woman with strong moral values. Ladies, using the word correctly, are very rare in the US.
Since ladies value love highly, they tend to eschew casual sex entirely. Since they demand respect and equality in relationships, they expect the same from the men they will marry.
If you're into "experienced" women, you can have all the casual sex you want, rack up a monstrous number, and still get what you're looking for, but if you want to marry a refined lady some day, you're going to have to conduct yourself as she would.
I will. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't know the meaning of the word "lady". It's often an abused word, used interchangeably with "woman". A lady is a highly refined, intelligent, and cultured woman with strong moral values. Ladies, using the word correctly, are very rare in the US.
Since ladies value love highly, they tend to eschew casual sex entirely. Since they demand respect and equality in relationships, they expect the same from the men they will marry.
If you're into "experienced" women, you can have all the casual sex you want, rack up a monstrous number, and still get what you're looking for, but if you want to marry a refined lady some day, you're going to have to conduct yourself as she would.
Like I so tactfully implied, you are by far the biggest misogynist in this thread.
You take the typical casual misogyny of HN and elevate it to a level that makes even the rest of em feel uncomfortable!
Bravo!
You take the typical casual misogyny of HN and elevate it to a level that makes even the rest of em feel uncomfortable!
Bravo!
I feel uncomfortable. How long has William J. Bennett been lurking on Hacker News?
My last comment on this topic is to quit while you're behind. It is a lot easier for your future girlfriend to find out how much of a kook you've been on the internet than it is for you to figure out how much of a "lady" she's been with her previous relationships.
My last comment on this topic is to quit while you're behind. It is a lot easier for your future girlfriend to find out how much of a kook you've been on the internet than it is for you to figure out how much of a "lady" she's been with her previous relationships.
To take my contempt for casual sex and run so far as to compare me to William J. Bennett is just ridiculous.
Why do you consider me a misogynist? Please justify this claim, or shut the fuck up.
I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
> Please justify this claim, or shut the fuck up.
We've seen the unicorns and butterflies. (I missed the poetry) Now we're seeing the shining armor.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life. You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without. In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
LJBF.
We've seen the unicorns and butterflies. (I missed the poetry) Now we're seeing the shining armor.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life. You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without. In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
LJBF.
Let's see, in just the past few super nested comments, you...
a) wagged your Madonna vs Whore complex out in the open air for everyone
b) implied women who engage in casual sex have a clinical disorder
c) said that women need society's protection against "cads"
d) said women can't take casual sex because of their poor widdle emooootionnnssss!
e) suggested that feminism has all the hallmarks of being engineered by evil menz!
> I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
Just like you can't see the stars when you're standing under a streetlamp, dude.
a) wagged your Madonna vs Whore complex out in the open air for everyone
b) implied women who engage in casual sex have a clinical disorder
c) said that women need society's protection against "cads"
d) said women can't take casual sex because of their poor widdle emooootionnnssss!
e) suggested that feminism has all the hallmarks of being engineered by evil menz!
> I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
Just like you can't see the stars when you're standing under a streetlamp, dude.
Come on! My 6-year old daughter is a result of one-night stand/casual sex. There were none negatives consequences for anyone. Everybody is happy. Wake up!
I would never have downvoted it to 0; it wasn't a 'bad' comment needing censure. But, when it briefly reached +3, I just tried to downvote it, and hit upvote by mistake instead. Oops! So take that as a hint as to how arbitrary individual votes are, and why you shouldn't worry too much about them.
Why didn't I want your long grandparent "quick comment" to be a +3 or higher?
At one level, you almost seem to be implying "that nasty Bush and people like him are why Arrington was spit on, and now heroic Obama will fix everything". I think that's a simplistic and unhelpful worldview. (It doesn't even help Obama to treat him like a superhero.)
You vent a laundry list of grievances with the past 30 years. Well, if you want to write hacker-themed analyses of 'casual sex', 'classism', 'internet harassment', 'homophobia', 'racism', 'so-called "irony"', the 'heartless health insurance system', or anything else, more power to you. But using the labels as shorthand slurs about how 'barbaric' our current 'era' is just makes the discussion partisan, impressionistic, and emotional. You're pressing buttons, and such threads degenerate quickly.
Finally, while I was born before your 1980 cutoff when things started to go bad, I imagine most of the participants here have spent their whole lives in what you call "a barbaric era of unbelievable interpersonal nastiness." I can imagine them taking issue with that characterization, now and in the future when "people look back".
Why didn't I want your long grandparent "quick comment" to be a +3 or higher?
At one level, you almost seem to be implying "that nasty Bush and people like him are why Arrington was spit on, and now heroic Obama will fix everything". I think that's a simplistic and unhelpful worldview. (It doesn't even help Obama to treat him like a superhero.)
You vent a laundry list of grievances with the past 30 years. Well, if you want to write hacker-themed analyses of 'casual sex', 'classism', 'internet harassment', 'homophobia', 'racism', 'so-called "irony"', the 'heartless health insurance system', or anything else, more power to you. But using the labels as shorthand slurs about how 'barbaric' our current 'era' is just makes the discussion partisan, impressionistic, and emotional. You're pressing buttons, and such threads degenerate quickly.
Finally, while I was born before your 1980 cutoff when things started to go bad, I imagine most of the participants here have spent their whole lives in what you call "a barbaric era of unbelievable interpersonal nastiness." I can imagine them taking issue with that characterization, now and in the future when "people look back".
"kill yourself" is hardly a nice thing to say, under any conditions.
You might want to check your irony detector.
But I have to say that a lot of nastiness can come from people that are frustrated with the current coverage in the tech media, where a lot of good technologies/projects/inovative startups are being ignored, and few people are taking the limelight. I even know about Julia Allison , but really what has she done? Except for being a great self promoter? What about Loc Le Meur startup, which is really nothing inovating. Why so few people are taking the limelight, while really good things are getting ignored? The ratio of noise to signal in the blogosphere/tech startup media is really high.
I guess a lot of people express this kind of frustration against these self-promoters, and not media itself.
It is like being annoyed at Britney Spears when the front page of CNN has a story about Britney Spears, while medicare reform is somewhere in the bottom.
Really, people should be frustrated at CNN, by ignoring it.
That's why I like HN, as it is a breath of fresh air, comparing to other sites.
(ps. we still have some shameless self promoters here, with github being one of them. We get it, git is awesome, but here are a lot of other technologies that get ignored, (HG one of them. Disproportionate coverage of something, in expense to something else just as useful, is just noise and doesn't help the community).