5 ms·

You're being toxic by calling people "cowards" for simply using a package instead of writing it themselves which reduces the amount of code they need to directl

by 0xCMP 8y ago

You're being toxic by calling people "cowards" for simply using a package instead of writing it themselves which reduces the amount of code they need to directly maintain. Displays a complete misunderstanding of the tradeoffs involved as well as being rude. And what's funny is that if you hadn't been a jerk the original point of Frameworks and NPM Packages for everything is a good point and probably would have been well received. Because, the fact is that, sometimes it IS better to do it yourself instead of using the package and most wouldn't. Sometimes.

austincheney 8y ago
Thank you for having the balls to respond. I could have tap danced around that by using a bunch of words like: demonstrating a proportional degree of insecurity to the depth of requirements presented across the breadth of considerations required by this responsibility. I found the word coward to be more honest and fitting, though. Ultimately, the rampant insecurity isn't a technology problem. It is a personality consideration. > And what's funny is that if you hadn't been a jerk the original point... People on the internet tend to have big tears and thin skin. I don't like lying to people because they have sensitivity issues. I would rather take the down votes. All these few down votes from a few shattered JavaScript developer hearts are instantly wiped clean when I get 80 up votes for posting a single comment about analysis or interviewing. Being honest and transparent has always helped me in the offline real world.
- HedgeSparrow 8y ago
  Why is it people think being "honest and transparent" means being rude and mean? Tact is also a useful skill.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Because sensitive people are too selfish to tell the difference. The world isn’t always smiles, hearts, and rainbows there to please you. Directness isn’t condescension unless you are a child. Sometimes honesty really does mean telling people what they don’t want to hear. Tact isn’t a form of antidepressant. Tact is the means to account for the intention of offense without regard for actual offense. Overly sensitive people may never see that distinction. People who figure these things out early tend to live happier and more fulfilled lives.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > The world isn’t always smiles, hearts, and rainbows there to please you. Of course it isn't, but that does not grant one an implicit licence to be uncouth. > Directness isn’t condescension unless you are a child. Directness isn't condescension, period. That, however, does not mean you can mix condescension with directness and call it plain directness. > Sometimes honesty really does mean telling people what they don’t want to hear. Then please, by all means, do just that, without resorting to improper name-calling. ---- You know what, I'm going to stop countering your points one-by-one, and try to talk to your central idea. I agree with you, at a central level. I wouldn't hire people who cannot write their own code either. I, too, would rather work with people who can and want to solve problems than merely put pegs in holes with assistance from the likes of npm and SO. But I wouldn't call them cowards. Because that would be mis-characterization, at best; and hyper-generalization, at worst. Even if you meant to call someone risk-averse, or fearful, using the word 'coward' is more than being direct. 'fearful' is direct and sufficient, as is 'risk-averse', but if you couldn't settle there and had to reach as far as 'coward', that suggests you wanted to use the extra force that comes with that word. Thus, condescensional offence. And then you continue in this path, characterizing those who wouldn't respond to you as lacking "balls", everyone who disagrees with your choice of words as "insecure", and everyone who downvoted you as "JavaScript developers" with "shattered hearts", those suggesting your "honest and rude" words lack tact as "overly sensitive" people. Lastly, I'll leave you with the suggestion that people in this world lead happier and even more fulfilled lives without resorting to even the slight force you're employing here.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        > Directness isn't condescension, period. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation. This conversation is here because people are offended I used the word coward and not at anybody specifically. I call them cowards because the behavior stems from intimidation. Everybody has fear, but its how people respond to it that determines bravery/cowardice. That said it isn't a surprise that cowards would be angrily offended at the mere thought of such a characterization even when not directed at them. You have no idea how many horror stories I have heard from legal that boils down to my boss is mean. After further investigation more than 90% of the time the person making the complaint needed a mean boss because they were a piece of crap. > And then you continue in this path, characterizing those who wouldn't respond to you as lacking "balls" Yes, people who down vote for a minor disagreement of opinion or because their mortal soul was shredded apart by their deeply profound state of offense don't understand what the down vote is for. It isn't there to reinforce an echo chamber. The down vote is there to push down comments that are completely outside the conversation at hand or that demonstrate bad behavior. The big tears of sensitive people isn't an indication of bad behavior. When I down vote a comment I always reply saying why I am doing so unless somebody else has already said it for me. It is the mature courteous thing to do.

by 0xCMP 8y ago

austincheney 8y ago

Thank you for having the balls to respond. I could have tap danced around that by using a bunch of words like: demonstrating a proportional degree of insecurity to the depth of requirements presented across the breadth of considerations required by this responsibility. I found the word coward to be more honest and fitting, though. Ultimately, the rampant insecurity isn't a technology problem. It is a personality consideration. > And what's funny is that if you hadn't been a jerk the original point... People on the internet tend to have big tears and thin skin. I don't like lying to people because they have sensitivity issues. I would rather take the down votes. All these few down votes from a few shattered JavaScript developer hearts are instantly wiped clean when I get 80 up votes for posting a single comment about analysis or interviewing. Being honest and transparent has always helped me in the offline real world.

HedgeSparrow 8y ago
Why is it people think being "honest and transparent" means being rude and mean? Tact is also a useful skill.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Because sensitive people are too selfish to tell the difference. The world isn’t always smiles, hearts, and rainbows there to please you. Directness isn’t condescension unless you are a child. Sometimes honesty really does mean telling people what they don’t want to hear. Tact isn’t a form of antidepressant. Tact is the means to account for the intention of offense without regard for actual offense. Overly sensitive people may never see that distinction. People who figure these things out early tend to live happier and more fulfilled lives.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    > The world isn’t always smiles, hearts, and rainbows there to please you. Of course it isn't, but that does not grant one an implicit licence to be uncouth. > Directness isn’t condescension unless you are a child. Directness isn't condescension, period. That, however, does not mean you can mix condescension with directness and call it plain directness. > Sometimes honesty really does mean telling people what they don’t want to hear. Then please, by all means, do just that, without resorting to improper name-calling. ---- You know what, I'm going to stop countering your points one-by-one, and try to talk to your central idea. I agree with you, at a central level. I wouldn't hire people who cannot write their own code either. I, too, would rather work with people who can and want to solve problems than merely put pegs in holes with assistance from the likes of npm and SO. But I wouldn't call them cowards. Because that would be mis-characterization, at best; and hyper-generalization, at worst. Even if you meant to call someone risk-averse, or fearful, using the word 'coward' is more than being direct. 'fearful' is direct and sufficient, as is 'risk-averse', but if you couldn't settle there and had to reach as far as 'coward', that suggests you wanted to use the extra force that comes with that word. Thus, condescensional offence. And then you continue in this path, characterizing those who wouldn't respond to you as lacking "balls", everyone who disagrees with your choice of words as "insecure", and everyone who downvoted you as "JavaScript developers" with "shattered hearts", those suggesting your "honest and rude" words lack tact as "overly sensitive" people. Lastly, I'll leave you with the suggestion that people in this world lead happier and even more fulfilled lives without resorting to even the slight force you're employing here.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      > Directness isn't condescension, period. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation. This conversation is here because people are offended I used the word coward and not at anybody specifically. I call them cowards because the behavior stems from intimidation. Everybody has fear, but its how people respond to it that determines bravery/cowardice. That said it isn't a surprise that cowards would be angrily offended at the mere thought of such a characterization even when not directed at them. You have no idea how many horror stories I have heard from legal that boils down to my boss is mean. After further investigation more than 90% of the time the person making the complaint needed a mean boss because they were a piece of crap. > And then you continue in this path, characterizing those who wouldn't respond to you as lacking "balls" Yes, people who down vote for a minor disagreement of opinion or because their mortal soul was shredded apart by their deeply profound state of offense don't understand what the down vote is for. It isn't there to reinforce an echo chamber. The down vote is there to push down comments that are completely outside the conversation at hand or that demonstrate bad behavior. The big tears of sensitive people isn't an indication of bad behavior. When I down vote a comment I always reply saying why I am doing so unless somebody else has already said it for me. It is the mature courteous thing to do.