Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

plausiblydeniable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#41

Post by taurath »

freedomben wrote: post #39

Great post, and an opportunity to talk about something that some in our community really need to hear: Don't neglect person hygiene. I have literally stopped attending group events because of extreme B.O. that one or a few people have (and I'm not typically sensitive to odors). I don't expect you to care about me, but I guarantee there are people you care about who feel the same way. Please just do these things. I kn…

> But you should put on cologne after your shower.

I agree with everything else but this. The people that wear cologne I know ALL wear too much of it, and its really offputting. Don't trust that you'll be different, especially if taking advice from this list. Just be clean.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#42

Post by qu4z-2 »

aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #38
ben_w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something can be an example of what was lost without itself actually being lost. The pyramids are an example of this distinction. However I think, from your examples, that you see the world in a fairly similar way to @le-mark and your distinction is more one of labels than anything else.

> The pyramids are an example of this distinction. The pyramids were never lost. They were in plain sight the entire time. Local people knew about them. They were 'discovered' by European colonizers and integrated into a pop culture phenomenon back in Europe, which included racist tropes and undertones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptomania

I can't find a way to read the grandparent's comment that implies that the pyramids were lost.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#43

Post by freedomben »

taurath wrote: post #41
freedomben wrote: post #39

Great post, and an opportunity to talk about something that some in our community really need to hear: Don't neglect person hygiene. I have literally stopped attending group events because of extreme B.O. that one or a few people have (and I'm not typically sensitive to odors). I don't expect you to care about me, but I guarantee there are people you care about who feel the same way. Please just do these things. I kn…

> But you should put on cologne after your shower. I agree with everything else but this. The people that wear cologne I know ALL wear too much of it, and its really offputting. Don't trust that you'll be different, especially if taking advice from this list. Just be clean.

Yes cologne is definitely something to be conservative with. Much better to smell like nothing than to smell like too much cologne.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#44

Post by peteretep »

ionised wrote: post #31
peteretep wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'. It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'vir…

I read it originally, and rereading it now, it still resonates, especially in the geeky communities I know of.

I just can’t find the hostility or attack in it that you’re seeing. It sounds like someone inside a group pushing the emergency button.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#45

Post by Grustaf »

ionised wrote: post #31
peteretep wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'. It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'vir…

How would you write an article about attitudes without generalising?

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#46

Post by ionised »

peteretep wrote: post #44
ionised wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'. It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'vir…

I read it originally, and rereading it now, it still resonates, especially in the geeky communities I know of. I just can’t find the hostility or attack in it that you’re seeing. It sounds like someone inside a group pushing the emergency button.

> It sounds like someone inside a group pushing the emergency button.

This kind of comment is a poor response, and not one you could ever prove. All it does is shit up the comments and amounts to little more than an insult.

At least post something substantial.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#47

Post by Siira »

Fallacy is a rather poor word choice here. Fallacy is a logical mistake. I think these attitudes are values which might have some unintended consequences which might be enough to overpower the value’s worth to its holders. Or they might not. It very much depends on what people want.
Post reply on HN