4 ms·

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity." I would absolutely say these things face to face, be

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity." I would absolutely say these things face to face, because I believe them to be true. I'm happy to go into detail on the first comment, and the second is hyperbolic metaphor. You've seen "Wall Street"? I don't think it's so far off from the truth here. Also, the "downvoted" comment was less a cliche, but more an acknowledgement based on previous experience. I'm happy to engage in deeply rational discussion around issues like basic income, the automation problem, and the issues specific to the Bay Area, but my comments keep getting downvoted far below the fold. That said, do you have any direct responses? :)

dang 10y ago
You broke the rules badly and it would be better to simply take responsibility for that. > I would absolutely say these things face to face There's no reading of the HN guidelines by which the claim 'no really, I would be that rude to someone's face' makes it ok to post what you posted. I often hear this from people who think they've found a loophole in the civility rule. But obviously there's no such loophole. 'Don't say things you wouldn't say in person' is there as an example of incivility, not as a limit outside which hey it's ok. Besides, I believe better of you than that you'd really tell someone to their face that they're an "engineer detached from emotion and any sense of duty towards other people" or the other horrible things you said. Keep in mind that you're talking about real humans here. The anonymous internet makes it easy to feel like you're simply slamming the Man in the service of righteousness. But that's what everyone who's being uncivil always feels, and none of us has the right to indulge it here.
- aestetix 10y ago
  Keep in mind I'm not speaking of everyone when I say this, but I do have a subset of the population in mind. Regarding the detatched engineer, here is just one example, although there are many: http://uptownalmanac.com/2013/08/tech-founder-complains-about-shithole-city-hes-forced-make-his-millions http://uptownalmanac.com/2013/08/tech-founder-complains-abou... In terms of the empathy and lack of spirit to the community, a cursory search through HN archives for the word "deserve" can summon a mountain of comments by people demanding to know why someone who grew up in neighborhoods like the Mission and has been priced out deserves to live there. There are also examples like Google executive Jack Halprin kicking people out of their homes: http://valleywag.gawker.com/protestors-target-home-of-google-exec-accused-of-evicti-1562273315 http://valleywag.gawker.com/protestors-target-home-of-google... Correct me if I'm wrong, but that last link seems like something Robert Moses would have done (and did, many times). Regarding the Gordon Gecko comment: there seems to be a growing sentiment that greed is good, and making profit at the expense of all else is paramount. I'm speaking of the attitude that lead Mark Pincus to threaten his employees with firing at the expense of their own stock options: http://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-stock-or-youll-be-fired/ http://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-st... Or the fact that Zuckerberg seems to think giving a controlled version of what the rest of the world calls the Internet to developing countries, maintaining control of what they see, while parading around as if he's the savior of the little guy. On the note about "anonymity": it seems Facebook did not learn anything from the Google nymwars, a topic I could give you hours worth of evidence on. In terms of "real humans", I have no doubt that the people I am criticizing are human and not gods, but I wonder if they remember that. They certainly don't act as if all the people they are displacing are. I'm not about "slamming the Man" or righteousness, whatever that is. But I do believe the social balance has shifted too far in one direction, and needs brutal, honest, discussion about why that is and whether it can be returned. If you do not believe this is the correct forum for such a discussion, I'm happy to re-engage with you elsewhere, the more public the better :)
  - dang 10y ago
    The issue is that you broke HN's civility rules blatantly. Please don't do that again.
    - aestetix 10y ago
      So if I were to reformulate everything into a more... pallatable form, you'd be willing to respond?
      - dang 10y ago
        If you want a further response I need evidence that you recognize how badly you broke the civility rules here.
panic 10y ago
I just wanted to say I liked your comment, in particular the criticism about "blank slate" redesign being historically difficult, the need for study of problems and solutions in existing cities (and study of existing studies of cities), and the dangers of "success", especially given the pernicious reliance on metrics in the tech world today. That said, I can see why it was flagged: the jabs at YC and the tech industry in general are basically flame bait and aren't necessary to make your argument.

dang 10y ago

You broke the rules badly and it would be better to simply take responsibility for that. > I would absolutely say these things face to face There's no reading of the HN guidelines by which the claim 'no really, I would be that rude to someone's face' makes it ok to post what you posted. I often hear this from people who think they've found a loophole in the civility rule. But obviously there's no such loophole. 'Don't say things you wouldn't say in person' is there as an example of incivility, not as a limit outside which hey it's ok. Besides, I believe better of you than that you'd really tell someone to their face that they're an "engineer detached from emotion and any sense of duty towards other people" or the other horrible things you said. Keep in mind that you're talking about real humans here. The anonymous internet makes it easy to feel like you're simply slamming the Man in the service of righteousness. But that's what everyone who's being uncivil always feels, and none of us has the right to indulge it here.

aestetix 10y ago
Keep in mind I'm not speaking of everyone when I say this, but I do have a subset of the population in mind. Regarding the detatched engineer, here is just one example, although there are many: http://uptownalmanac.com/2013/08/tech-founder-complains-about-shithole-city-hes-forced-make-his-millions http://uptownalmanac.com/2013/08/tech-founder-complains-abou... In terms of the empathy and lack of spirit to the community, a cursory search through HN archives for the word "deserve" can summon a mountain of comments by people demanding to know why someone who grew up in neighborhoods like the Mission and has been priced out deserves to live there. There are also examples like Google executive Jack Halprin kicking people out of their homes: http://valleywag.gawker.com/protestors-target-home-of-google-exec-accused-of-evicti-1562273315 http://valleywag.gawker.com/protestors-target-home-of-google... Correct me if I'm wrong, but that last link seems like something Robert Moses would have done (and did, many times). Regarding the Gordon Gecko comment: there seems to be a growing sentiment that greed is good, and making profit at the expense of all else is paramount. I'm speaking of the attitude that lead Mark Pincus to threaten his employees with firing at the expense of their own stock options: http://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-stock-or-youll-be-fired/ http://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-st... Or the fact that Zuckerberg seems to think giving a controlled version of what the rest of the world calls the Internet to developing countries, maintaining control of what they see, while parading around as if he's the savior of the little guy. On the note about "anonymity": it seems Facebook did not learn anything from the Google nymwars, a topic I could give you hours worth of evidence on. In terms of "real humans", I have no doubt that the people I am criticizing are human and not gods, but I wonder if they remember that. They certainly don't act as if all the people they are displacing are. I'm not about "slamming the Man" or righteousness, whatever that is. But I do believe the social balance has shifted too far in one direction, and needs brutal, honest, discussion about why that is and whether it can be returned. If you do not believe this is the correct forum for such a discussion, I'm happy to re-engage with you elsewhere, the more public the better :)
- dang 10y ago
  The issue is that you broke HN's civility rules blatantly. Please don't do that again.
  - aestetix 10y ago
    So if I were to reformulate everything into a more... pallatable form, you'd be willing to respond?
    - dang 10y ago
      If you want a further response I need evidence that you recognize how badly you broke the civility rules here.

panic 10y ago

I just wanted to say I liked your comment, in particular the criticism about "blank slate" redesign being historically difficult, the need for study of problems and solutions in existing cities (and study of existing studies of cities), and the dangers of "success", especially given the pernicious reliance on metrics in the tech world today. That said, I can see why it was flagged: the jabs at YC and the tech industry in general are basically flame bait and aren't necessary to make your argument.