4 ms·

What I'm talking about really has nothing to do with power. Maybe the examples I chose suggested that power dynamics are relevant to my point, but I think they

What I'm talking about really has nothing to do with power. Maybe the examples I chose suggested that power dynamics are relevant to my point, but I think they aren't, so here is another example without one: Should an architect refrain from judging Frank Lloyd Wright just because they never worked together? I think certainly not. That seems completely backwards to me. Anybody is entitled to have an opinion on Frank Lloyd Wright, another architect particularly so.

scaramanga 6y ago
Are you talking about judging his contributions and significance to architecture or his worth as a person? I get that the two things have some overlap and aren't cleanly divisible. What we do is a major part of who we are. But I mean, it's one thing to say "I think it [his architecture] is awful", or even "I think his architecture had a negative impact on people/society/cherished values/whatever" but quite another to say "I think he sought the ruination of everything good and decent because he was a demented and feeble mind." Because, yes, I do think the last one would only be appropriate if you actually knew something about the guy... Edit: And yeah, of course, I'm not trying to censor anyone's opinions. Of course you can _have_ the opinion, you can even express it. I just think that it's not what engaging in productive/civil discourse looks like and, depending on the venue, people may call that out or whatever.
- stretchcat 6y ago
  I am not talking about judging his 'worth as a person'; rather his 'worth as a developer.' Maybe in his private life he's a wonderful person, who knows? Who cares? It is his professional activities that concern people.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    You are of course welcome to have an opinion, and to choose whatever product you want based on that opinion. But if the extent of your opinion is "this person is a jerk and their work is terrible and not to my taste" that is unlikely to convince that person to change course, especially if they don't know you and if the decision is already made.
    - getitstraight 6y ago
      Linux Puttering is not only a talentless programmer, he's a horrible, evil, wicked person, who in a just world should be beaten to death with a claw hammer, or thrown out of the nearest airlock. This little bastard knows EXACTLY what he is doing to Linux. You are of course free to make some smart fuck remark in response to this, or "report" the post to the local Gestapo, or whatever other fuck-ass action strikes your fancy.
      - dang 6y ago
        We've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with, no matter how strongly you feel about something or someone. We're trying for something else here because it's the only way to keep the site interesting. From some of your other comments I gather that you've been around this material for a long time and you know a lot about it. Why not share some of what you know, so others can learn? and make your substantive points thoughtfully? Then you'll be making this place more interesting, and your points will have some persuasive power. Just venting only adds energy and credibility to the views you disagree with. I get that there's a low probability this argument will work with you but I think it's worth trying to persuade people that it's in their own interest to follow the rules, which are designed to try to keep a community that's interesting for everybody: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        youdontlisten 6y ago
        > 'We've banned this account.' SHOCKER! > 'Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with, no matter how strongly you feel about something or someone.' What? Is that really how you think? That I created this account "just to break HN's 'guidelines' with"? Like that's my sole mission in life: just to piss you off. Did you ever stop to consider that I am simply sharing my open, brutally honest opinion, based on a rational consideration of a large pile of facts? By the way, the word 'guideline' implies that it's optional. So what are they actually--rules or guidelines? Do you just redefine language to be whatever you want it to be? > 'We're trying for something else here because it's the only way to keep the site interesting.' What does this mean, exactly? I was happy with the status quo of an open, honest exchange of information on an open internet. I don't recognize this Soviet Union style gulag you've converted it into. You want to try "something else"? How about this for a shocking new innovation: a forum where people can express their opinions without being immediately descended upon and harassed by "no soup for you" Nazi mods. Is that the crowd you want to nurture and encourage here: populated by idiots and cowards with brittle personalities who can't tolerate differing viewpoints? > 'From some of your other comments I gather that you've been around this material for a long time and you know a lot about it.' Well, HOLY SHIT! What an amazing admission. So we've progressed from the original "this guy is a useless twit, why just LOOK at the shit he posts, we must BAN BAN BAN! don't worry about how he thinks or feels, JUST KILL IT WITH FIRE!", to what is now a much more conciliatory ban message. Instead of the door being slammed in my face, now it is closed with a huff. Given the observed progression, at this rate within the next 5-10 years at most you'll be begging me to stay, in slowly dawning recognition that the things I know and understand might be of some use to you. Progress. The catch is, you'll be balls deep in your long-anticipated World War against Russia and China by then. But already at this moment there is no hope that you could ever convince me to stay and help or encourage you with that. Too little, too late. You burned that bridge long ago. There's countless others like me who have taken our prodigous skills and talents and abandoned this corrupt and wicked society. We have retreated to the hills and stockpiled plenty of popcorn to enjoy the fireworks of your demise. "Gone Galt," they call it. You couldn't pay us enough to do anything for you people anymore. This is what you have done to yourselves, through countless means and methods, not the least of which is your open embrace of censorship of formerly free and open internet forums. Did you ever consider that shadowbanning people is an extremely antisocial and evil thing to do to someone? Of course you didn't. I don't entertain any idea of trying to help you, or others like you, by posting in places like this. I only do it to preserve the idea of resistance in others who are subject to your tyranny. > 'I get that there's a low probability this argument will work with you but I think it's worth trying to persuade people that it's in their own interest to follow the rules' Did you ever consider that all of these bullshit rules and regulations people like you enact and prostrate yourself in worship of, aren't in the best interest of society*, and never were? Did you ever consider that it's YOU who is the problem here? LOLOFCOURSENOT! YOU ARE WAY TOO SELFISH TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

scaramanga 6y ago

Are you talking about judging his contributions and significance to architecture or his worth as a person? I get that the two things have some overlap and aren't cleanly divisible. What we do is a major part of who we are. But I mean, it's one thing to say "I think it [his architecture] is awful", or even "I think his architecture had a negative impact on people/society/cherished values/whatever" but quite another to say "I think he sought the ruination of everything good and decent because he was a demented and feeble mind." Because, yes, I do think the last one would only be appropriate if you actually knew something about the guy... Edit: And yeah, of course, I'm not trying to censor anyone's opinions. Of course you can _have_ the opinion, you can even express it. I just think that it's not what engaging in productive/civil discourse looks like and, depending on the venue, people may call that out or whatever.

stretchcat 6y ago
I am not talking about judging his 'worth as a person'; rather his 'worth as a developer.' Maybe in his private life he's a wonderful person, who knows? Who cares? It is his professional activities that concern people.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  You are of course welcome to have an opinion, and to choose whatever product you want based on that opinion. But if the extent of your opinion is "this person is a jerk and their work is terrible and not to my taste" that is unlikely to convince that person to change course, especially if they don't know you and if the decision is already made.
  - getitstraight 6y ago
    Linux Puttering is not only a talentless programmer, he's a horrible, evil, wicked person, who in a just world should be beaten to death with a claw hammer, or thrown out of the nearest airlock. This little bastard knows EXACTLY what he is doing to Linux. You are of course free to make some smart fuck remark in response to this, or "report" the post to the local Gestapo, or whatever other fuck-ass action strikes your fancy.
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with, no matter how strongly you feel about something or someone. We're trying for something else here because it's the only way to keep the site interesting. From some of your other comments I gather that you've been around this material for a long time and you know a lot about it. Why not share some of what you know, so others can learn? and make your substantive points thoughtfully? Then you'll be making this place more interesting, and your points will have some persuasive power. Just venting only adds energy and credibility to the views you disagree with. I get that there's a low probability this argument will work with you but I think it's worth trying to persuade people that it's in their own interest to follow the rules, which are designed to try to keep a community that's interesting for everybody: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - youdontlisten 6y ago
        > 'We've banned this account.' SHOCKER! > 'Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with, no matter how strongly you feel about something or someone.' What? Is that really how you think? That I created this account "just to break HN's 'guidelines' with"? Like that's my sole mission in life: just to piss you off. Did you ever stop to consider that I am simply sharing my open, brutally honest opinion, based on a rational consideration of a large pile of facts? By the way, the word 'guideline' implies that it's optional. So what are they actually--rules or guidelines? Do you just redefine language to be whatever you want it to be? > 'We're trying for something else here because it's the only way to keep the site interesting.' What does this mean, exactly? I was happy with the status quo of an open, honest exchange of information on an open internet. I don't recognize this Soviet Union style gulag you've converted it into. You want to try "something else"? How about this for a shocking new innovation: a forum where people can express their opinions without being immediately descended upon and harassed by "no soup for you" Nazi mods. Is that the crowd you want to nurture and encourage here: populated by idiots and cowards with brittle personalities who can't tolerate differing viewpoints? > 'From some of your other comments I gather that you've been around this material for a long time and you know a lot about it.' Well, HOLY SHIT! What an amazing admission. So we've progressed from the original "this guy is a useless twit, why just LOOK at the shit he posts, we must BAN BAN BAN! don't worry about how he thinks or feels, JUST KILL IT WITH FIRE!", to what is now a much more conciliatory ban message. Instead of the door being slammed in my face, now it is closed with a huff. Given the observed progression, at this rate within the next 5-10 years at most you'll be begging me to stay, in slowly dawning recognition that the things I know and understand might be of some use to you. Progress. The catch is, you'll be balls deep in your long-anticipated World War against Russia and China by then. But already at this moment there is no hope that you could ever convince me to stay and help or encourage you with that. Too little, too late. You burned that bridge long ago. There's countless others like me who have taken our prodigous skills and talents and abandoned this corrupt and wicked society. We have retreated to the hills and stockpiled plenty of popcorn to enjoy the fireworks of your demise. "Gone Galt," they call it. You couldn't pay us enough to do anything for you people anymore. This is what you have done to yourselves, through countless means and methods, not the least of which is your open embrace of censorship of formerly free and open internet forums. Did you ever consider that shadowbanning people is an extremely antisocial and evil thing to do to someone? Of course you didn't. I don't entertain any idea of trying to help you, or others like you, by posting in places like this. I only do it to preserve the idea of resistance in others who are subject to your tyranny. > 'I get that there's a low probability this argument will work with you but I think it's worth trying to persuade people that it's in their own interest to follow the rules' Did you ever consider that all of these bullshit rules and regulations people like you enact and prostrate yourself in worship of, aren't in the best interest of society*, and never were? Did you ever consider that it's YOU who is the problem here? LOLOFCOURSENOT! YOU ARE WAY TOO SELFISH TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.