3 ms·

This comment reminds me of bikeshedding. There was this whole post, full of emotion and anger and sadness and conflict, written about people and behaviour and s

This comment reminds me of bikeshedding. There was this whole post, full of emotion and anger and sadness and conflict, written about people and behaviour and social ostracism, and you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT? I can’t help but feel that this is not your best work. I have no idea whether it’s true or not, but Dave’s personality is irrelevant to the argument, which is about online communities and cyber-bullying. Unless, perhaps, you are trying to demonstrate how it works? Have I failed to catch the subtle way you demonstrate that if someone is disliked for something, no matter what they say and how important it is, people will focus on why they dislike that person?

michaelchisari 15y ago
you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT? In Critical Theory discussions, it's called "derailing", and once you have a name for it, it becomes even more frustrating. Notice how now, we're not discussing the original ideas of the post, but are completely pushed into a tangential discussion. At least HN has threaded discussions. When it happens in flat discussions like Facebook, it's an order of magnitude more annoying.
scott_s 15y ago
So, here's the problem I have: I agree with you. But I also had the same reaction the parent did. It's an irrational, unfair response, but I am so tired of reading Winer's writing that I find I'm not capable of considering his points. I even know this about myself, yet I still read the comments here, then I still read his post. Short version: yes it's unfair, but yes, in this case, I'm unable to separate the message from the messenger.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I empathize with you. While I read Dave’s words without trouble, I confess that I struggle with Eric Raymond’s words for reasons unrelated to the words themselves. It’s not easy for me to walk my talk, so I am loathe to criticize you for being just like me.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    Perhaps my difficulty is that, when I read Winer's writing, I feel like he is inserting himself into the message. Instead of saying "this is my point," I feel he says "this is how I am related to my point."

michaelchisari 15y ago

you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT? In Critical Theory discussions, it's called "derailing", and once you have a name for it, it becomes even more frustrating. Notice how now, we're not discussing the original ideas of the post, but are completely pushed into a tangential discussion. At least HN has threaded discussions. When it happens in flat discussions like Facebook, it's an order of magnitude more annoying.

scott_s 15y ago

So, here's the problem I have: I agree with you. But I also had the same reaction the parent did. It's an irrational, unfair response, but I am so tired of reading Winer's writing that I find I'm not capable of considering his points. I even know this about myself, yet I still read the comments here, then I still read his post. Short version: yes it's unfair, but yes, in this case, I'm unable to separate the message from the messenger.

raganwald 15y ago
I empathize with you. While I read Dave’s words without trouble, I confess that I struggle with Eric Raymond’s words for reasons unrelated to the words themselves. It’s not easy for me to walk my talk, so I am loathe to criticize you for being just like me.
- scott_s 15y ago
  Perhaps my difficulty is that, when I read Winer's writing, I feel like he is inserting himself into the message. Instead of saying "this is my point," I feel he says "this is how I am related to my point."