3 ms·

Why are you so worked up about this? You're being extremely abrasive and combative here. Webkike didn't slut shame this woman or insult her. The question pos

by dpark 10y ago

Why are you so worked up about this? You're being extremely abrasive and combative here. Webkike didn't slut shame this woman or insult her. The question posed is literally "what's the point?" The article did a poor job of making this profile interesting. (Sorry, Sonya.) There could have been an interesting article here about the maker scene in China, or the unhealthy way many westerners online attack this woman for her appearance, or how non-stereotypical people can end up interested in the maker scene, or maybe something else. Instead we got a title that promised body mods and diy manufacturing and an article that delivered little of either. There were literally two into paragraphs, mostly about her appearance, and then "Given all of this context, I reached out to SexyCyborg for an interview." What context? And now a question about 3D printing? If I wrote an article containing two paragraphs about a guy called CyborgJim who wears Metallica T-shirts, 3D prints Star Wars figurines, and gets called a neckbeard online and then jumped into a Q&A with him, someone would rightly say "why should I care?" And I doubt you would defend my article so vigorously.

throwanem 10y ago
> There could have been an interesting article here about the maker scene in China, or the unhealthy way many westerners online attack this woman for her appearance, or how non-stereotypical people can end up interested in the maker scene, or maybe something else. And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate. > The article did a poor job of making this profile interesting. You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive.
- dpark 10y ago
  > And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate. I would not consider the article a "workable entrée" into any of those topics. Yes, I could do my own investigation into each of those things, but this article doesn't help much with that, nor does it manage to make me interested in any of those things. You can't expect people to read a bad article and then say "well, that was boring, but I bet if I follow every link here I'll eventually find something worth my time". > You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive. I don't agree. A poor article is not excused by having an interesting subject. A poor article will make a subject seem uninteresting, which is what happened here.

by dpark 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

> There could have been an interesting article here about the maker scene in China, or the unhealthy way many westerners online attack this woman for her appearance, or how non-stereotypical people can end up interested in the maker scene, or maybe something else. And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate. > The article did a poor job of making this profile interesting. You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive.

dpark 10y ago
> And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate. I would not consider the article a "workable entrée" into any of those topics. Yes, I could do my own investigation into each of those things, but this article doesn't help much with that, nor does it manage to make me interested in any of those things. You can't expect people to read a bad article and then say "well, that was boring, but I bet if I follow every link here I'll eventually find something worth my time". > You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive. I don't agree. A poor article is not excused by having an interesting subject. A poor article will make a subject seem uninteresting, which is what happened here.