Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#1

Post by less_penguiny » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 10:36 AM UTC

Geek Social Fallacies (2003)
plausiblydeniable.com

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#2

Post by paganel » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

Excellent article, just wanted to point out that I’ve seen most of the stuff described by it in non-geeky social groups, too.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#3

Post by kennyadam » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

I remember reading this when it was first posted! Hard to believe it's been more than 15 years! Still a great piece of writing though!

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#4

Post by nominatronic » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

It's a classic, but per rules the title should include "(2003)". I remember this doing the rounds on Livejournal.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#5

Post by less_penguiny » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:31 AM UTC

nominatronic wrote: post #4

It's a classic, but per rules the title should include "(2003)". I remember this doing the rounds on Livejournal.

Good call, just changed it.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#6

Post by DiabloD3 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:32 AM UTC

less_penguiny wrote: post #5

nominatronic wrote: post #4

It's a classic, but per rules the title should include "(2003)". I remember this doing the rounds on Livejournal.

Good call, just changed it.

But it was changed to 2013, not 2003.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#7

Post by ionised » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:35 AM UTC

I don't get it.

This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another.

For what purpose?

I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#8

Post by peteretep » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:42 AM UTC

ionised wrote: post #7

I don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

What group of people do you think he's attacking?

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#9

Post by pgsandstrom » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:46 AM UTC

ionised wrote: post #7

I don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

It is very hard to interpret tone on the internet. I, for one, did not find the tone to be disingenuous. Perhaps it is best to cut the author some slack, since we can never know for sure what he or she intended.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#10

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 11:51 AM UTC

ionised wrote: post #7

I don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

>This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another.

It's an attack on an entire group of attitudes/behaviors.

Unless people that exhibit them are entirely defined as personalities by those attitudes (which I don't think is the case), it's not an attack of a "group of people", and even less so, an attack on particular persons.

>For what purpose?

To help stomp out attitudes/behaviors that are not good (at least not good according to the author).

>I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

You are mistaken, or don't have a clear grasp of what it is said in that post.