4 ms·

Two wrongs don't make a right. "Jerks", as a comment, is purely subtractive. We're all adults. There are plenty of critiques to their action and their defense.

Two wrongs don't make a right. "Jerks", as a comment, is purely subtractive. We're all adults. There are plenty of critiques to their action and their defense. Let's use our words to make reasoned arguments rather than just lashing back.

tripzilch 8y ago
"Jerk" is a pretty mild word to express dissatisfaction. I would maybe ascribe it to a mismatch in expected decorum, hardly call it toxic. Like, do you expect a church or an informal conversation among peers? Or if you will, a cathedral or a bazaar? :) And it was just one comment .. "We're all adults" goes both ways, let's not fall all over ourselves because of a little mildly bad word. Personally I don't think that's very constructive either, in the sense that it lights the fire under something that distracts very much from the actual topic. They called it an astounding level of toxicity. Whatever your thoughts on the expected level of decorum, that seems a tad hyperbolic to call out over usage of the word "jerk". Such hyperbole is definitely not helping, and in my personal opinion, actually more "subtractive" than generically calling a group of people that did something you don't like "jerks". For one thing, it's not astonishing. It just isn't.
- dahart 8y ago
  > “Jerk” is a pretty mild word to express dissatisfaction. I certainly wouldn’t defend it. It’s not toxic because “jerk” is a bad or particularly strong word by itself, it’s toxic because calling someone a jerk is a personal attack, and it’s a judgement call that is purely mean spirited and doesn’t address any concerns. It doesn’t explain the frustration, it’s escalating things in a negative way, and it’s an insult. That is not a socially acceptable way to express dissatisfaction.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    It's not a personal attack if it is directed at a company or the actions of a company rather than at a person. Its purpose is not to explain the frustration but to signal the intensity while clarifying the attribution: the person making the comment believes that Docker acted knowingly against their interest and does not buy the excuse that Docker put forward. I challenge you to express the same concepts with the same clarity in five times as many words. I contest that name-calling is not an escalation over doublespeak. Finally, whether or not something is socially acceptable is up to society, not to you.
    - dahart 8y ago
      > It's not a personal attack if it is directed at a company or the actions of a company rather than at a person. Splitting hairs perhaps? “Jerks” is intended to be an insult no matter how many people you’re talking to or about. > it’s purpose is not to explain the frustration but to signal the intensity Sure, that’s a plausible assumption, but it doesn’t help the conversation, nor make it okay or socially acceptable to hurl insults. Are you certain that was the purpose? Have you clarified that with the author of the comment? Perhaps a better way to signal intensity is to explain what material impact the decision has on their workflow and daily lives. What is the cost in terms or time or money, or something else? > whether or not something is socially acceptable is up to society, not to you. Yeah, that’s correct. Did I claim it was up to me? I stated a fact, not my personal opinion. Throwing insults around is not socially acceptable, according to society, not me.
piva00 8y ago
Exactly, we are all adults, this kind of non-answer-marketing-speak: "we've made this change to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward" is dishonest. I, as an adult, would definitely call someone who gives me this sideway kind of answer a jerk.
- techntoke 8y ago
  And after you call them out for their lies, they will say you're toxic to the community for suggesting that they're not being genuine.

tripzilch 8y ago

"Jerk" is a pretty mild word to express dissatisfaction. I would maybe ascribe it to a mismatch in expected decorum, hardly call it toxic. Like, do you expect a church or an informal conversation among peers? Or if you will, a cathedral or a bazaar? :) And it was just one comment .. "We're all adults" goes both ways, let's not fall all over ourselves because of a little mildly bad word. Personally I don't think that's very constructive either, in the sense that it lights the fire under something that distracts very much from the actual topic. They called it an astounding level of toxicity. Whatever your thoughts on the expected level of decorum, that seems a tad hyperbolic to call out over usage of the word "jerk". Such hyperbole is definitely not helping, and in my personal opinion, actually more "subtractive" than generically calling a group of people that did something you don't like "jerks". For one thing, it's not astonishing. It just isn't.

dahart 8y ago
> “Jerk” is a pretty mild word to express dissatisfaction. I certainly wouldn’t defend it. It’s not toxic because “jerk” is a bad or particularly strong word by itself, it’s toxic because calling someone a jerk is a personal attack, and it’s a judgement call that is purely mean spirited and doesn’t address any concerns. It doesn’t explain the frustration, it’s escalating things in a negative way, and it’s an insult. That is not a socially acceptable way to express dissatisfaction.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  It's not a personal attack if it is directed at a company or the actions of a company rather than at a person. Its purpose is not to explain the frustration but to signal the intensity while clarifying the attribution: the person making the comment believes that Docker acted knowingly against their interest and does not buy the excuse that Docker put forward. I challenge you to express the same concepts with the same clarity in five times as many words. I contest that name-calling is not an escalation over doublespeak. Finally, whether or not something is socially acceptable is up to society, not to you.
  - dahart 8y ago
    > It's not a personal attack if it is directed at a company or the actions of a company rather than at a person. Splitting hairs perhaps? “Jerks” is intended to be an insult no matter how many people you’re talking to or about. > it’s purpose is not to explain the frustration but to signal the intensity Sure, that’s a plausible assumption, but it doesn’t help the conversation, nor make it okay or socially acceptable to hurl insults. Are you certain that was the purpose? Have you clarified that with the author of the comment? Perhaps a better way to signal intensity is to explain what material impact the decision has on their workflow and daily lives. What is the cost in terms or time or money, or something else? > whether or not something is socially acceptable is up to society, not to you. Yeah, that’s correct. Did I claim it was up to me? I stated a fact, not my personal opinion. Throwing insults around is not socially acceptable, according to society, not me.

piva00 8y ago

Exactly, we are all adults, this kind of non-answer-marketing-speak: "we've made this change to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward" is dishonest. I, as an adult, would definitely call someone who gives me this sideway kind of answer a jerk.

techntoke 8y ago
And after you call them out for their lies, they will say you're toxic to the community for suggesting that they're not being genuine.