3 ms·
If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as we
by chroma 10y ago
If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as well as the fame-seeking.
In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field.
My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.
- tptacek 10y agoThere are abusive rock stars who are not charlatans, so that doesn't work well either. I'm not saying that the debate over terminology is unproductive; maybe we'll hit on the perfect word. But it's not the point of the piece.
- kyledrake 10y agoI'm with you on this one. I don't like abusers and assholes, but I like the title, and intend to continue to use it in a positive light, sparingly, and with good purpose. In my interpretation of the title, some rock stars are jerks, others are actually pretty good people. When I used to work in politics, after he did a great speech at the DNC convention, I called Obama a "rock star" that was going to go on to big things. That was long before he announced his run for presidency. Mind you, I didn't even vote for him and I said that (I proudly throw my presidential vote away for the Libertarian candidate every year). That title works best, naturally, when it isn't diluted down in crappy job postings. I'm all for tossing out abusers here, don't get me wrong. But honestly, as perhaps the only person here that has ever actually contracted a form of Cholera (long story), I still wouldn't want to live in a world that's only plumbers, and I don't think you would either.
- tptacek 10y agoI'm harping on this, I know, but I really don't think the goal of this post is to get people to stop using the term "rock star", and the fact that people keep suggesting that's the controversy makes me worry people haven't really read the piece very carefully.
- kyledrake 10y agoSubtly equating abusive behavior with people that are energetic and ambitious is clearly baked into the nature of this conversation and that particular facet is quite controversial to me, and to a lot of people here that are likely as concerned about abusive behavior as I am. We don't need to institutionally get rid of "rock stars". Their ambition for attention and fame is a recipe for a lot of great things. What I think we really need here is to get better at not enabling them to be abusive, and for calling them out when they are. I also do think we need to get better at choosing who our rock stars are, an opinion I got a long time ago from watching Limp Bizkit win a music award.