3 ms·

Sandman is correct in his asessment - I completely understand the point and context of the article as explained in these comments. I simply didn't understand wh

by mixmax 16y ago

Sandman is correct in his asessment - I completely understand the point and context of the article as explained in these comments. I simply didn't understand why it seemed to be interesting enough to gather 100+ votes. You can call the original question an attempt to gratify my intellectual curiosity as to why this story is so interesting. Your comment sheds some light on it, personally I still don't see the value of the article but I do see the sentiment for upvoting it. I merely thought there was some finer point I didn't get and wanted to understand it.

gruseom 16y ago
I posted it as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon": a journalist finds a decent way to push back against online abusiveness. The story isn't really about one guy, it's about human relations and the value of human life. In other words the real story is all meta, but the reporter had the sense do it unobtrusively and keep the focus on Neil. There's a secondary way in which this is an interesting phenomenon, too: the story is being picked up by other media outlets because it resonates with many people. I caught part of an interview with the reporter on CBC radio last night. While they did talk explicitly about the meta aspect (what prompted you to write it, what were you trying to achieve, how do you think the internet is affecting people), they also had the sense to devote most of the piece to Neil Smith. What the reporter figured out is that by focusing on the details of this individual, he could make a general point more powerfully than by stating it in general. That excites my curiosity. Edit: There are two common responses to nasty online comments: argue with them or ignore them. Most people figure out after a while that arguing just feeds the trolls, so ignoring is better. But this guy came up with an innovative way to respond: he elevated the thing that they belittled; he picked it up and polished it off and showed that it was beautiful. He found a way to give beauty for ashes. That's just not very common.

by mixmax 16y ago

gruseom 16y ago

I posted it as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon": a journalist finds a decent way to push back against online abusiveness. The story isn't really about one guy, it's about human relations and the value of human life. In other words the real story is all meta, but the reporter had the sense do it unobtrusively and keep the focus on Neil. There's a secondary way in which this is an interesting phenomenon, too: the story is being picked up by other media outlets because it resonates with many people. I caught part of an interview with the reporter on CBC radio last night. While they did talk explicitly about the meta aspect (what prompted you to write it, what were you trying to achieve, how do you think the internet is affecting people), they also had the sense to devote most of the piece to Neil Smith. What the reporter figured out is that by focusing on the details of this individual, he could make a general point more powerfully than by stating it in general. That excites my curiosity. Edit: There are two common responses to nasty online comments: argue with them or ignore them. Most people figure out after a while that arguing just feeds the trolls, so ignoring is better. But this guy came up with an innovative way to respond: he elevated the thing that they belittled; he picked it up and polished it off and showed that it was beautiful. He found a way to give beauty for ashes. That's just not very common.