Live data from Hacker News

Why the Fuck?

raganwald.posterous.com

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

481–490 of 528 posts

Re: Why the Fuck?

#481

Post by mikle » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

ruswick wrote: post #262

mikle wrote: post #70

Is the author of this is currently working on curing diabetes? I think the chances are small he is. What I'm trying to say is that he is a hypocrite.

I don't think so. In order to be a hypocrite, one needs to criticize a group into which one fits. However, the post explicitly referenced our nations "smart people," or whatever phrasing he used. Evidently, he doesn't consider himself sufficiently educated or academically positioned to pursue cures for diabetes, so it's permissible that he criticizes people who are in such a position and choose not to cure diabetes.…

So you think he is talking to that department at Google full of MDs? :)

Just to make sure I got the point across - the above joke was meant to say that people working in Google usually are also not sufficiently educated or academically positioned to pursue cures for diabetes. Being a programmer is not some aptitude test that means you can do anything. I'm a great programmer but I can barely watch House MD without cringing at the sight of innards or blood.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#482

Post by raganwald » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

ynniv wrote: post #468

jules wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being incredibly rude and unfair. The guy wrote a blog post on his personal blog. It gets posted to HN and gets massive criticism. And now you're complaining that he posted a response to that in the comments? If you don't like the voting behavior, add something valuable to the discussion rather than slinging empty complaints and repeating ad hominems. e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5090255 and http:/…

You're being incredibly rude and unfair. Rude? Maybe. Unfair? Hardly. The OP completely mischaracterizes what the best groups in our industry do, then laments that people aren't helping his friend, and this lamentation is the extent of his contribution to his friend's plight. Ad hominem means that I disagree with him because of his person, which is not true. I disagree with him because of specific hypocrisy and finge…

"disagree with him because of hypocrisy and finger-pointing"

Neither of those are ways to disagree with someone's words. That's the Ad Hominem fallacy. What you may mean is that you dislike the fact that I'm saying them, or the way that I'm saying them, or the color of my tie, or something along those lines. Which is a perfectly valid feeling to have, but it isn't disagreement and Hacker News has specific guidelines discouraging incivility as well as a long-standing antipathy to Ad Hominem abuse.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#483

Post by mikle » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:15 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #102

My fellow HNers: It does depress me, daily, that I do not have a career in physics or chemistry or biology or medicine where I could work on "big problems." The simple truth is, I'm not smart enough, I don't work hard enough, and I've been napping when opportunity knocked a few times in my life. That being said, sometimes a man in a saloon has a few drinks and yells at the television, telling the coach of some footba…

Hi taganwald, I'm the one who outright called you a hypocrite. I hope you don't take it personally, that's just what I feel reading this. I'm a programmer because that's what I like doing, not because I think that this is the best way I can contribute to the world.

To be honest, even your last line doesn't impress me much. I've been told smoking is bad and I never smoked. I've also been told to go to university and work in a stable job. Not all advice from older people is applicable to everyone. I will not regret not being a doctor (or whatever you are advising) because I am happy and the world needs more happy people :)

Re: Why the Fuck?

#484

Post by raganwald » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #469

pg wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make this point perfectly well without being so nasty.

Maybe. I've been 25 years experimenting with it. If every person complaining the world should be better would take the time to visit with a mentally handicapped person, or wipe the drool off an Alzheimer patient's chin, or have coffee with the lonely dude in the corner -- the world _would_ be an enormously better place. Better than they dream. This is obvious. Also, that these things aren't sexy. Which leads to impli…

I am not sure that some occasional rudeness to the vainly well-meaning isn't part of the solution.

Let's grant that this may be the case in general regardless of whether it influences me personally. It's important to consider the net benefit or loss to a social environment. It could be that incivility does discourage some people from posting things you think are unhelpful or noisy.

On the other hand, such incivility also signals to other people that incivility is acceptable. You may have the judgment to make such a thing "occasional," but can you be sure everyone else will share your restraint?

I think that the HN style as espoused by Paul and as specifically mentioned in the guidelines is to err on the side of civility here on HN, and the evidence so far seems to suggest that civility does work.

Look at this thread. There is some rudeness, but there're lots of perfectly cogent and civil arguments explaining that my rant was flawed.

Which do you think contributes more to HN? Which do you think is most likely to influence me personally in the future?

Re: Why the Fuck?

#485

Post by dmoo » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:25 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #113

raganwald wrote: post #102

My fellow HNers: It does depress me, daily, that I do not have a career in physics or chemistry or biology or medicine where I could work on "big problems." The simple truth is, I'm not smart enough, I don't work hard enough, and I've been napping when opportunity knocked a few times in my life. That being said, sometimes a man in a saloon has a few drinks and yells at the television, telling the coach of some footba…

> It does depress me, daily, that I do not have a career in > physics or chemistry or biology or medicine where I could > work on "big problems." Seconded, though I could never find the words to express this before. How the fuck is anything that I'm doing right now helping to make the world a better place? How could I even begin to make a difference with my life? Making software is the only thing that I'm marginally…

Just to remember Bill Gates only made software and he is doing pretty well at the moment trying to make the world a better place and cure horrifying disease.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#486

Post by chernevik » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #351

chernevik wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then shut up and go do something better. I'm not sure how to read this as anything but a passive-aggressive complaint that _other_ people aren't doing more about these problems. You try to disqualify yourself from the responsibilities you imply for others, but the fact is we can all be more diligent, if we like, and we can all do work to improve the lives of others. Guess what? If you _seriously_ try to help oth…

> shut up No. You can say that all you want, and I defy you. You're welcome to suggest that there is some better use of my time, but there is nothing more chilling to freedom of thought and expression than someone saying "That thought is too rude, too lame, to annoying, cuts too close," or whatever else and therefore cannot be uttered. It's like "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." That's a passive-aggressiv…

Would you prefer "stop posing"?

You're complaining about social priorities that have arrived at tweetable pictures before diabetes management -- while noting you haven't the diligence to apply yourself to the problem. Well gee whiz I am just not sure I see the point of that particular statement. Except to put everyone on notice of your noble intentions.

And as I noted, at length, it's my experience that this sort of thing does more to hinder the people who are quietly getting on with exactly what you'd like to see done.

So please get busy. If you cannot manage that, get out of the way.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#487

Post by Mz » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:43 PM UTC

illuminate wrote: post #480

Mz wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious why you feel the need to hound me and repeatedly use terminology like "quack". That is generally not socially acceptable behavior. No one else on HN does this to me. I wish you would stop. It isn't likely to accomplish anything constructive.

I'm saying that a change of tact is required if you're experiencing hostility from the communities you wish to draw readers from. Realizing and working around these preconceptions will be essential. I use the phrase "quack" because these people exist in large number on the internet, and there certainly exist people who offer promises to the disabled community that they are not capable of delivering on. There's a very…

Listen, the remark above which you are currently criticizing was not bitter and was not a complaint about my situation. It was intended to be supportive of raganwald. Perhaps it utterly failed. No big.

If you would really like to help me, I would appreciate if you stop trying to give this sort of "social" feedback to me, especially publicly. It isn't going to help me. I understand the social challenges I face far better than you do.

However, there is a type of feedback I am in desperate need of and cannot get. If your remarks to me actually are motivated by a constructive impulse, I could really use some feedback, probably privately, to help me start turning some of my stubs into posts. There is a yawning chasm in that regard which I don't know how to cross and no one can tell me how to cross. I could use a sounding board to help me bridge it. Otherwise, please just let it go. I am making inroads on quite a lot of things.

Thanks.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#488

Post by ynniv » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:44 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #482

ynniv wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being incredibly rude and unfair. Rude? Maybe. Unfair? Hardly. The OP completely mischaracterizes what the best groups in our industry do, then laments that people aren't helping his friend, and this lamentation is the extent of his contribution to his friend's plight. Ad hominem means that I disagree with him because of his person, which is not true. I disagree with him because of specific hypocrisy and finge…

"disagree with him because of hypocrisy and finger-pointing" Neither of those are ways to disagree with someone's words. That's the Ad Hominem fallacy. What you may mean is that you dislike the fact that I'm saying them, or the way that I'm saying them, or the color of my tie, or something along those lines. Which is a perfectly valid feeling to have, but it isn't disagreement and Hacker News has specific guidelines…

or the color of my tie

This kind of response further devolves the discussion. I said nothing so flippant, and suggesting so is disrespectful to me.

Neither of those are ways to disagree with someone's words.

Hypocrisy shows that someone either doesn't understand a problem, or that they are not honest in arguing against it. Finger pointing shows that they want someone else to solve this problem for them, which suggests that they feel superior to the issue.

Hacker News has specific guidelines discouraging incivility as well as a long-standing antipathy to Ad Hominem abuse.

To paraphrase your original article, Why the fuck do people on Hacker News always cry "ad hominem" and point to the guidelines so much? Ad hominem attacks are far more common in real life, when people actually know each other. I am only aware of you insomuch as I have read "your words", so why are you so quick to assume that I disagree with you personally?

Your original post is either naive, flippant, or blinded by emotion. It isn't constructive, it denigrates the work of others, and childishly demands that the world be a better place.

Don't lean on ad hominem, that only serves to mask that there are far bigger problems on the table.

Re: Why the Fuck?

#489

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:46 PM UTC

wamatt wrote: post #393

sukuriant wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think the parent's confusion is twofold. First, you're comma-splicing some of your sentences, making it harder to read what you're saying. Commas have rhymes and reasons to them; and, it is good to know when to use them and where. It also seems like you are too quick to begin a new paragraph. Concepts that connect to one another should be put into the same paragraph so a person knows where one idea (or sub…

> "The conceptual stream" is hard to follow. What conceptual stream? Do you mean you're having trouble articulating what you want to say? Then why not say that? "Conceptual stream" is not something usually said in conversational English A fair point. While some statements could be a somewhat unfamiliar/unusual, it only take a little more effort to process, if one just thinks about it. eg "conceptual stream" Take the…

[deleted]

Re: Why the Fuck?

#490

Post by chernevik » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 4:57 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #484

chernevik wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. I've been 25 years experimenting with it. If every person complaining the world should be better would take the time to visit with a mentally handicapped person, or wipe the drool off an Alzheimer patient's chin, or have coffee with the lonely dude in the corner -- the world _would_ be an enormously better place. Better than they dream. This is obvious. Also, that these things aren't sexy. Which leads to impli…

I am not sure that some occasional rudeness to the vainly well-meaning isn't part of the solution. Let's grant that this may be the case in general regardless of whether it influences me personally. It's important to consider the net benefit or loss to a social environment. It could be that incivility does discourage some people from posting things you think are unhelpful or noisy. On the other hand, such incivility…

Neither of us know much of one another beyond what we've read here. I can tell you I've gone through a master class in earnest and civil argumentation, and discovered that it is not universally successful.

Because many people, who say they mean well and actually believe they do, have unconsciously shaped the problems to arrive at those solutions most convenient to themselves. I have done this myself. This sort of self-deception accounts for a large proportion of trouble in the world.

Now if we grant that such people exist, then it won't be a surprise that it is mighty goddam hard to talk them out of anything. Because we can all rationalize all sorts of contradictory input, and what we can't, we can conveniently ignore. Again, I speak from personal experience of my own thinking.

So perhaps you might see why whacking someone with something along the lines of "That's ridiculous, snap out of it" might actually sometimes be more effective than sweet reason.

How well this applies to _you_ is beyond my ken. Seriously. Maybe I have it all wrong.

You find my remarks annoying. Ok, but I have your attention -- and it isn't as if there isn't any thought to what I wrote. It's something more than well-done name-calling. And perhaps you'll agree that there are some people, perhaps not yourself, who might not notice a more polite approach. Again, I haven't anything but a guess about _you_. I'm responding to a _post_.

I hope I strive to be civil. If civility actually interferes with communication, is it actually a good thing in those moments?

Post reply on HN