3 ms·

If you read my comment again, you will see that I am not criticizing anyone for being smug. In fact, I say that I don't mind vanity when it is deserved. Elabora

by erwan 8y ago

If you read my comment again, you will see that I am not criticizing anyone for being smug. In fact, I say that I don't mind vanity when it is deserved. Elaborate and we could have a discussion, as it stands there isn't much for me to reply.

neonate 8y ago
If you use language like "they are themselves incapable of producing the tiniest bit of contrarian thought", "they are too scared to break rank with what is socially acceptable", etc. then of course you are judging others, whether you say you are or not. What I don't like about comments like that one (nothing personal mind you) is that they don't actually say anything. It's all just pejorative language, putting down others, and thus implicitly taking a superior position yourself. Unless I'm missing something, the only sentence in the comment that doesn't fit that description is It is very hard to find anything subversive outside of anonymous clubs living on the fringe of the internet, a few domain specific publications, and "crank" hot-spots. That, at least, isn't putting down other people. But why assume that the people you're talking about don't know this?
- erwan 8y ago
  That's because you take my criticism of the overall laziness as the ultimate end of my comment. It's not. It serves as context to answer the question that the article prompts: Why are techies enamored with Pr. Hariri, their "doomsayer"? And the answer is directly related to the fact that there is a search for contrarian-ness, a quest that is not introspective at all because that would actually require some effort rather than passive content consumption. You choose to describe my criticism as "putting people down" as if my goal was to be mean, but I suspect you are more annoyed at what you interpret as arrogance rather than anyone's feelings. I don't mind you thinking that but I don't think that's the case.

by erwan 8y ago

neonate 8y ago

If you use language like "they are themselves incapable of producing the tiniest bit of contrarian thought", "they are too scared to break rank with what is socially acceptable", etc. then of course you are judging others, whether you say you are or not. What I don't like about comments like that one (nothing personal mind you) is that they don't actually say anything. It's all just pejorative language, putting down others, and thus implicitly taking a superior position yourself. Unless I'm missing something, the only sentence in the comment that doesn't fit that description is It is very hard to find anything subversive outside of anonymous clubs living on the fringe of the internet, a few domain specific publications, and "crank" hot-spots. That, at least, isn't putting down other people. But why assume that the people you're talking about don't know this?

erwan 8y ago
That's because you take my criticism of the overall laziness as the ultimate end of my comment. It's not. It serves as context to answer the question that the article prompts: Why are techies enamored with Pr. Hariri, their "doomsayer"? And the answer is directly related to the fact that there is a search for contrarian-ness, a quest that is not introspective at all because that would actually require some effort rather than passive content consumption. You choose to describe my criticism as "putting people down" as if my goal was to be mean, but I suspect you are more annoyed at what you interpret as arrogance rather than anyone's feelings. I don't mind you thinking that but I don't think that's the case.