3 ms·

This essay does not read like an intellectual piece at all. Poorly defined terms, labeling people, non-falsifiable psychoanalysis. And to top it off he calls b

This essay does not read like an intellectual piece at all. Poorly defined terms, labeling people, non-falsifiable psychoanalysis. And to top it off he calls both labeled groups of people "less than men". All of this setup to deliver the profound advice to just ignore them. (Before people call me a "hater", note that I strictly do not meet the definition, because I like a lot of his essays.)

qbrs 7y ago
Yes, his definition of "hater" seems to be "a person who always disagrees with him or questions his success", whereas occasional disagreement just carries the "troll" label. It is not very clever to write an essay like this in the abstract without naming concrete instances of "hating". If the essay targets certain political activists on Twitter, sure, but pg has a history of calling Arc critics "trolls".
Fnoord 7y ago
Calling you hater based on this post is just using the argument of the article to make a point. That's like saying: "this statement is true" and anyone who disagrees with that, is a <fill in>. Is a hater akin to a criticaster? Like a critic without substance? And a fanboy a fan without substance? Then the burden of proof to prove a lack of substance is with the person who starts to use the word "fanboy" or "hater". As such definitions are essentially ad hominem (and no, you being attacked personally does not warranty an equal ad hominem).
dtornabene 7y ago
yeah I caught that as well. "less than men" is a pretty good tell that this is going to be pure wankery. I appreciate his lisp books (I've told him so, publicly, in a room of about 2k people) but this is laughable. Of a piece with the "I wouldn't hire women who might have children, if I could get away with it" take.
meowface 7y ago
The pun is that "fanboy" encapsulates "not a man" (boy). Of course the archetypal fanboy or hater is kind of a weakman (if not quite a strawman), but that's the point; it's a model. He's pointing out that in that model, the "boy" is very relevant and indicative. If he were discussing the word "fangirl", he'd probably say "not a woman" instead, but I think that would result in more flak ("as a mam, who are you to judge if a woman is a real woman or not?"). I feel like a lot of the posts in this thread are missing what he's actually trying to say here.

qbrs 7y ago

Yes, his definition of "hater" seems to be "a person who always disagrees with him or questions his success", whereas occasional disagreement just carries the "troll" label. It is not very clever to write an essay like this in the abstract without naming concrete instances of "hating". If the essay targets certain political activists on Twitter, sure, but pg has a history of calling Arc critics "trolls".

Fnoord 7y ago

Calling you hater based on this post is just using the argument of the article to make a point. That's like saying: "this statement is true" and anyone who disagrees with that, is a <fill in>. Is a hater akin to a criticaster? Like a critic without substance? And a fanboy a fan without substance? Then the burden of proof to prove a lack of substance is with the person who starts to use the word "fanboy" or "hater". As such definitions are essentially ad hominem (and no, you being attacked personally does not warranty an equal ad hominem).

dtornabene 7y ago

yeah I caught that as well. "less than men" is a pretty good tell that this is going to be pure wankery. I appreciate his lisp books (I've told him so, publicly, in a room of about 2k people) but this is laughable. Of a piece with the "I wouldn't hire women who might have children, if I could get away with it" take.

meowface 7y ago

The pun is that "fanboy" encapsulates "not a man" (boy). Of course the archetypal fanboy or hater is kind of a weakman (if not quite a strawman), but that's the point; it's a model. He's pointing out that in that model, the "boy" is very relevant and indicative. If he were discussing the word "fangirl", he'd probably say "not a woman" instead, but I think that would result in more flak ("as a mam, who are you to judge if a woman is a real woman or not?"). I feel like a lot of the posts in this thread are missing what he's actually trying to say here.