4 ms·
The phrase is analogous to "editor wars", and I am not the first to use it. Imagine for a moment that somebody murdered Richard Stallman. Would it be appropriat
by mrob 7y ago
The phrase is analogous to "editor wars", and I am not the first to use it. Imagine for a moment that somebody murdered Richard Stallman. Would it be appropriate to eulogize him as "author of Emacs, which is without a doubt the best editor in the world"? To me that looks a lot like exploiting the tragedy to score points in a comparatively unimportant argument. Nobody can bring up other candidates for best editor without looking insensitive.
It's possible to praise a person or organization's accomplishments without putting down others. Kyoto Animation certainly deserves such praise. But there is no need to start ranking studios.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rowanG077 7y agoWhat he wrote wasn't anything official like a eulogy. It was a hackernews post. God forbid someone writes an opinion in one those...
- mrob 7y agoHow does "official" status (which is in any case not required for the verb "eulogize") have any relevance to whether it's appropriate to challenge people in a context where they can't respond to that challenge without breaking social obligations? If I say "Emacs is without a doubt the best editor", then I naturally expect Vi fans to defend their favorite editor. There is in fact doubt, and they can surely come up with reasons why Vi could be considered better. But if I make my claim when any defense of Vi would be downvoted for distracting from more important issues then I am not arguing in good faith.
- rowanG077 7y agoHe didn't challenge anyone. If you express your opinion "Emacs is without a doubt the best editor" in some other context related to Emacs then you aren't challenging anyone. You are simply expressing an opinion. Opinions don't have to be challenged. I read hundreds of opinions every day and guess what: some of them I don't agree with. That doesn't mean they are declarations of war or anything of the sort. It also doesn't mean I have to fight that opinion.
- mrob 7y agoMost opinions are not stated in a way that reads identical to a claim of factually superior rank. If I say "Emacs is my favorite editor" that is not challenging anybody. "Emacs is an excellent editor" is not challenging anybody either. But "Emacs is best without a doubt" leaves no room for any other editor to be best, and leaves no room for dismissal of the statement as just subjective opinion, so it is a direct challenge to all competitors.
- rowanG077 7y agoThe vast majority of all opinions are stated as a factual claim. Especially in an informal settings like you know a hackernews thread.
- mrob 7y agoI said specifically "a claim of factually superior rank". Just an opinion stated as fact is not the same thing. E.g. I looked at all the comments for the highest scoring article currently on the front page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20531987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20531987 ). I found opinions stated as fact, but none that simultaneously deprecated anything else.
- rowanG077 7y agoAn opinion that deprecates something else is just a subset of all opinions. It doesn't deserve special care.
- mrob 7y agoAll specific opinions are subsets of all opinions. Deprecating something is not a challenge if it is presented as subjective. It is the combination of deprecation and statement as fact (e.g. "without a doubt") that is confrontational. And confrontational opinions are perfectly acceptable in the correct context. My claim is that a context where any disagreement breaks social conventions is the wrong context.