3 ms·

Ethos != ethic. I think Brett Scott pretty clearly defined what he meant when he said "hacker", so there's not much point in arguing about what the word "hacke

Ethos != ethic. I think Brett Scott pretty clearly defined what he meant when he said "hacker", so there's not much point in arguing about what the word "hacker" means. You know what he means at least enough to disagree with his definition. Semantics just aren't that interesting. Scott's bigger point is that there existed a culture of hackers which has largely been whitewashed, watered down, and appropriated by business interests. Your own post is an example of this gentrification: you've adopted a definition where "hacker" is just "nerd" with a cooler connotation, where "free" means "gratis" and counter-culture is orthogonal. But people in the culture Scott is describing, nerds are boring, "free" means "libre" and counter-culture is inherently integral to what a hacker is. You can disagree that the word means that, but you can't deny that that ethos exists, or that it is being subsumed by a Web 2.0 version of itself.

ktRolster 10y ago
I think Brett Scott pretty clearly defined what he meant when he said "hacker", so there's not much point in arguing about what the word "hacker" means. The author is insulting people who use the word "hacker" in ways he doesn't like. If the author is going to do that, he should at least use the common definition of the word....
- kerkeslager 10y ago
  Language changes over time: the way Scott is using the word "hacker" was the common definition of the word at one time. The change in meaning of the word "hacker" is one of the main symptoms of the social phenomenon Scott is describing. And I think that if you took a step back from your semantic argument, you'd realize that it would be impossible for Scott to talk about the social phenomenon he's describing while using your version of the word "hacker". That's the definition of newspeak: you're insisting on a definition of the word such that Scott's idea cannot be expressed. Personally, I value communication over the specific words used. I think it's clear to everyone what Scott means when he says "hacker", so he communicated effectively.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    Language changes over time: the way Scott is using the word "hacker" was the common definition of the word at one time. The change in meaning of the word "hacker" is one of the main symptoms of the social phenomenon Scott is describing I've never heard the word hacker used the way Scott describes it. If you have references, that would be interesting.
    - kerkeslager 10y ago
      I said, "Semantics just aren't that interesting." and "Personally, I value communication over the specific words used." You continue to try to have a semantic argument with me, which I'm not going to engage you on further. You understand what Scott meant when he said "hacker". Pedantic arguments over definitions distract from the discussion I actually care about. If you want to claim that a hacker counter-culture didn't exist and wasn't replaced by an insipid version of itself, I'll be happy to engage you on that topic. Otherwise, this will be my last post in this conversation.

ktRolster 10y ago

I think Brett Scott pretty clearly defined what he meant when he said "hacker", so there's not much point in arguing about what the word "hacker" means. The author is insulting people who use the word "hacker" in ways he doesn't like. If the author is going to do that, he should at least use the common definition of the word....

kerkeslager 10y ago
Language changes over time: the way Scott is using the word "hacker" was the common definition of the word at one time. The change in meaning of the word "hacker" is one of the main symptoms of the social phenomenon Scott is describing. And I think that if you took a step back from your semantic argument, you'd realize that it would be impossible for Scott to talk about the social phenomenon he's describing while using your version of the word "hacker". That's the definition of newspeak: you're insisting on a definition of the word such that Scott's idea cannot be expressed. Personally, I value communication over the specific words used. I think it's clear to everyone what Scott means when he says "hacker", so he communicated effectively.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Language changes over time: the way Scott is using the word "hacker" was the common definition of the word at one time. The change in meaning of the word "hacker" is one of the main symptoms of the social phenomenon Scott is describing I've never heard the word hacker used the way Scott describes it. If you have references, that would be interesting.
  - kerkeslager 10y ago
    I said, "Semantics just aren't that interesting." and "Personally, I value communication over the specific words used." You continue to try to have a semantic argument with me, which I'm not going to engage you on further. You understand what Scott meant when he said "hacker". Pedantic arguments over definitions distract from the discussion I actually care about. If you want to claim that a hacker counter-culture didn't exist and wasn't replaced by an insipid version of itself, I'll be happy to engage you on that topic. Otherwise, this will be my last post in this conversation.