3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand--isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people? If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't

by aamar 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand--isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people? If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here. All of these people have professional stakes which are in play in a heated debate they're having with a very small number of other people who also have professional stakes. But I'm sure Gruber and Topolsky and others go home and have lots of relationships with people that do not involve any of this. I feel similarly about "think about": as heated as this language is, I don't know that we can easily characterize what Topolsky thinks about Gruber and Siegler overall.

jemka 15y ago
>isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people? I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences. >If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here. Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.