4 ms·

This kind of drama is not healthy for technology. Do yourself a favor and don't waste time reading this, nor the original article it's responding to.

hellofunk 9y ago
I can't tell if you were suggesting we should read the original article only, but not this response?
- khazhou 9y ago
  Neither. I had a typo.
vosper 9y ago
I think Rich Hickey has an excellent point about the hurt that these kind of rants cause to people in the open source community. I can't imagine this guy would ever go up to Rich Hickey and yell "Fuck You" at him in person, but somehow he feels okay about doing it from behind a screen. To quote from the linked post: > And, if you are talking about Clojure, you are talking to me. The indirection doesn't mask the attack on people, their work and their choices. > I have to say now to those for whom such expressions are cathartic - they hurt people, a lot. I don't believe the sentiments in the post are widely held - most people who are happily using Clojure aren't as vocal. But it doesn't take many arrows to bring someone down. > Every time I have to process such a diatribe and its aftermath, and its effects on myself, my family, and my co-workers, I have to struggle back from "Why should I bother?", and every time it gets harder to justify to myself and my family that it's worth the time, energy and emotional burden. Every time a community engages with such a diatribe without calling it out, and decrying its tone, the civility of our discourse and treatment of others heads further down the drain. These are the people who're building the technology we're using, and if something is hurting them and making them not want to go on with their work then that IS bad for technology. You might not care either way for the debate, but no-one should tolerate the tone that the original author used.
- zimablue 9y ago
  I actually disagree massively with this point. I love Rich Hickey's work, love Clojure but it's kind of an important principle that you have to be able to separate attacks on ideas or systems from attacks on people. If you identify yourself with an idea and I attack it, it's your responsibility to not take it personally and not a reason for me not to make a statement. If you can't do that, you can't have debate, or science. You can only have tribalism and identity politics.
  - hellofunk 9y ago
    If you read the additional comments in the original article, comments by the same author, you can see that Rich is directly addressing those when he identifies himself with the system.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    I agree but only when the "attack" is within civil bounds, which the original blog post crossed(). Otherwise you create a situation where people can attack people while hiding behind the claim they are attacking idea. It doesn't help conversation to support saying Fuck Feminism, but I have no beef with Feminists. I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack.
    - eropple 9y ago
      > I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack. Really? It seemed very earnest--jerkish, but earnest--to me.
      - WillPostForFood 9y ago
        Passages like this made me think the author's intent wasn't totally earnest, but going for melodramatic effect. Now that the party is over and sunrise begins to reveal the plastic fairy lights and overdone makeup, I begin to question my life as well as the values that I am looking for within it. And the opening was just shock value, or an emotional outburst, not that he hates and wants to move on. ...Fuck Clojure. There I've said it and God it feels good. More misguided than malicious, which is how I would interpret it if the intent was purely earnest.

hellofunk 9y ago

I can't tell if you were suggesting we should read the original article only, but not this response?

khazhou 9y ago
Neither. I had a typo.

vosper 9y ago

I think Rich Hickey has an excellent point about the hurt that these kind of rants cause to people in the open source community. I can't imagine this guy would ever go up to Rich Hickey and yell "Fuck You" at him in person, but somehow he feels okay about doing it from behind a screen. To quote from the linked post: > And, if you are talking about Clojure, you are talking to me. The indirection doesn't mask the attack on people, their work and their choices. > I have to say now to those for whom such expressions are cathartic - they hurt people, a lot. I don't believe the sentiments in the post are widely held - most people who are happily using Clojure aren't as vocal. But it doesn't take many arrows to bring someone down. > Every time I have to process such a diatribe and its aftermath, and its effects on myself, my family, and my co-workers, I have to struggle back from "Why should I bother?", and every time it gets harder to justify to myself and my family that it's worth the time, energy and emotional burden. Every time a community engages with such a diatribe without calling it out, and decrying its tone, the civility of our discourse and treatment of others heads further down the drain. These are the people who're building the technology we're using, and if something is hurting them and making them not want to go on with their work then that IS bad for technology. You might not care either way for the debate, but no-one should tolerate the tone that the original author used.

zimablue 9y ago
I actually disagree massively with this point. I love Rich Hickey's work, love Clojure but it's kind of an important principle that you have to be able to separate attacks on ideas or systems from attacks on people. If you identify yourself with an idea and I attack it, it's your responsibility to not take it personally and not a reason for me not to make a statement. If you can't do that, you can't have debate, or science. You can only have tribalism and identity politics.
- hellofunk 9y ago
  If you read the additional comments in the original article, comments by the same author, you can see that Rich is directly addressing those when he identifies himself with the system.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  I agree but only when the "attack" is within civil bounds, which the original blog post crossed(). Otherwise you create a situation where people can attack people while hiding behind the claim they are attacking idea. It doesn't help conversation to support saying Fuck Feminism, but I have no beef with Feminists. I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack.
  - eropple 9y ago
    > I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack. Really? It seemed very earnest--jerkish, but earnest--to me.
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      Passages like this made me think the author's intent wasn't totally earnest, but going for melodramatic effect. Now that the party is over and sunrise begins to reveal the plastic fairy lights and overdone makeup, I begin to question my life as well as the values that I am looking for within it. And the opening was just shock value, or an emotional outburst, not that he hates and wants to move on. ...Fuck Clojure. There I've said it and God it feels good. More misguided than malicious, which is how I would interpret it if the intent was purely earnest.