3 ms·

This is a pretty incendiary and bitterness-laden rant. I enjoyed the trip back in time but the last paragraph, for me, pretty much nullified any actual points t

by _bxg1 7y ago

This is a pretty incendiary and bitterness-laden rant. I enjoyed the trip back in time but the last paragraph, for me, pretty much nullified any actual points the author was trying to make.

braythwayt 7y ago
I empathize with your feelings, but iobjectively, if an author makes three good points and then pours toxic emotional sewage all over them, the good points are still the gooid points. We may not want to read the author esposuing them any further, who needs toxic sewage? But the sewage cannot nullify a point that we recognize as true. Its truth is independent of whether the author is a goofd or bad person. Its truth is independent of whether the author argues it well or poorly. It's unfortunate when good points get covered in toxic emotions. I wouldn't say that we should read such things whether we like it or not, but having read them, I say we take the good points and repackage them in less vitriolic prose.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  It undermines his judgement. He makes sweeping, subjective arguments, which isn't inherently a bad thing but it means those arguments are more than just cold facts. The amount of heated emotion he apparently has around this subject means that his ability to draw conclusions from "soft" information is compromised.
- egdod 7y ago
  If we’re talking about a syllogism, fine. If we’re talking about some mixture of logic with historical recollections, suppositions about other peoples’ state of mind, etc... the narrator starts to matter more. If I can trust him to be objective and reasonable, it weakens the piece.
Retra 7y ago
Points made through the application of logic can't be nullified by a failure to appeal to emotion. The writing style may not be optimal for building consensus, but that won't make it invalid.
glangdale 7y ago
I agree, and contrary to the two other responses, I can't separate the toxic emotion stuff from the supposed neutral argument underneath it. Why? Well, I have only vague memories of Hypercard (played with it as a kid), so when you read the arguments about it from someone who clearly knows a lot more, you're expected to take it on authority. However, if that person is ranting and raving and calling people who disagree with him "autistic", it's impossible not to suspect that the guy has the 'thumb on the scale' even in the portion of the discussion that's apparently neutral. As someone pointed out in his comment section, he was just plain making stuff up about Jobs killing Hypercard (despite his attempts to back-and-fill on the issue).

by _bxg1 7y ago

This is a pretty incendiary and bitterness-laden rant. I enjoyed the trip back in time but the last paragraph, for me, pretty much nullified any actual points the author was trying to make.

braythwayt 7y ago

I empathize with your feelings, but iobjectively, if an author makes three good points and then pours toxic emotional sewage all over them, the good points are still the gooid points. We may not want to read the author esposuing them any further, who needs toxic sewage? But the sewage cannot nullify a point that we recognize as true. Its truth is independent of whether the author is a goofd or bad person. Its truth is independent of whether the author argues it well or poorly. It's unfortunate when good points get covered in toxic emotions. I wouldn't say that we should read such things whether we like it or not, but having read them, I say we take the good points and repackage them in less vitriolic prose.

_bxg1 7y ago
It undermines his judgement. He makes sweeping, subjective arguments, which isn't inherently a bad thing but it means those arguments are more than just cold facts. The amount of heated emotion he apparently has around this subject means that his ability to draw conclusions from "soft" information is compromised.
egdod 7y ago
If we’re talking about a syllogism, fine. If we’re talking about some mixture of logic with historical recollections, suppositions about other peoples’ state of mind, etc... the narrator starts to matter more. If I can trust him to be objective and reasonable, it weakens the piece.

Retra 7y ago

Points made through the application of logic can't be nullified by a failure to appeal to emotion. The writing style may not be optimal for building consensus, but that won't make it invalid.

glangdale 7y ago

I agree, and contrary to the two other responses, I can't separate the toxic emotion stuff from the supposed neutral argument underneath it. Why? Well, I have only vague memories of Hypercard (played with it as a kid), so when you read the arguments about it from someone who clearly knows a lot more, you're expected to take it on authority. However, if that person is ranting and raving and calling people who disagree with him "autistic", it's impossible not to suspect that the guy has the 'thumb on the scale' even in the portion of the discussion that's apparently neutral. As someone pointed out in his comment section, he was just plain making stuff up about Jobs killing Hypercard (despite his attempts to back-and-fill on the issue).