5 ms·

Emphatically: NO! That is not how language and communication work. You can't strip away words and connotations and say 'these two sentences say the same thing'.

Emphatically: NO! That is not how language and communication work. You can't strip away words and connotations and say 'these two sentences say the same thing'. The sentences use different words, with subtly different meanings, that convey different intentions and feelings. These different words all exist, specifically because we want to be able to convey such nuanced differences. Your interpretation of these sentences only interprets the basic fact being communicated and discards all the other aspects of the communication. Interestingly, if that basic fact offends you, then there is nothing words can do, if you aren't sensitive to what those words are intended to do: soften the impact of criticism. Nuances in words are only meaningless to insensitive receivers.

vacri 14y ago
In the context provided, with the smug 'educational' "meta note" appended, it is a patronising and demeaning comment. Haberman has effectively said "we won't discuss the merits of the piece, but I'm still going to score a political point at the article's expense". It's a bit like when Ebert said "Games aren't art, and there is nothing more to discuss". Either make your point and allow discussion, or avoid discussion. Saying 'you can't make your point but I can make mine' is hypocritical. Also, the two comments I equate are the same in essence - both refuse to discuss the item citing poor quality. There is no real criticism in it, because there is no actual discussion of the merits. Where is the subtlety? What I'm pointing out is that his blanket shut-out without discussion is actually an offensive tactic - one I personally find more offensive than Torvald's direct 'that idea is stupid' style.
- haberman 14y ago
  > it is a patronising and demeaning comment. To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. You are reading intent in my comment that simply does not exist. The article is low-quality because it does nothing but tear down strawmen. No one is arguing that people can't have opinions and defend them. No one is arguing that people should accept bad ideas or code just to be nice. No one is arguing that opinion is a democracy (!?). The whole thing is setting up a false dichotomy and then praising Linus and others for not being accommodating wet noodles. Since the main premise of the essay is this false dichotomy, I noticed that my first sentence disproves this premise by counterexample. I didn't write this comment with a patronizing or demeaning attitude. I can see why you would take it that way, because I can see a person writing a thing like that with a snarky attitude, but I did not.
  - vacri 14y ago
    To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. That intent need not be conscious. Second-class citizens the world over suffer from being demeaned without conscious effort. What you should have said in your first comment is what you said here: why you think it's low quality. I do not agree with you about your several 'no one is arguing', because I think that they are. If you phrase it the way you do philosophically, of course people will say they're not doing that, but in their criticism of Tovalds (/RMS/whoever), many folks refuse to take content because of context. While no-one is saying he should take bad code to be nice, there is a sentiment of opinion-as-a-democracy. Your counterexample is just as bad as that you decry because instead of Torvalds style (blunt but informative), you were just saying "I'm ignoring your comments without giving you any reasons". If I submit something and it's rejected, I'd much rather receive the former than the latter, because then at least I know why. Would people really prefer a stoic Torvalds that just stonewalled commits he didn't like without explaining why?

vacri 14y ago

In the context provided, with the smug 'educational' "meta note" appended, it is a patronising and demeaning comment. Haberman has effectively said "we won't discuss the merits of the piece, but I'm still going to score a political point at the article's expense". It's a bit like when Ebert said "Games aren't art, and there is nothing more to discuss". Either make your point and allow discussion, or avoid discussion. Saying 'you can't make your point but I can make mine' is hypocritical. Also, the two comments I equate are the same in essence - both refuse to discuss the item citing poor quality. There is no real criticism in it, because there is no actual discussion of the merits. Where is the subtlety? What I'm pointing out is that his blanket shut-out without discussion is actually an offensive tactic - one I personally find more offensive than Torvald's direct 'that idea is stupid' style.

haberman 14y ago
> it is a patronising and demeaning comment. To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. You are reading intent in my comment that simply does not exist. The article is low-quality because it does nothing but tear down strawmen. No one is arguing that people can't have opinions and defend them. No one is arguing that people should accept bad ideas or code just to be nice. No one is arguing that opinion is a democracy (!?). The whole thing is setting up a false dichotomy and then praising Linus and others for not being accommodating wet noodles. Since the main premise of the essay is this false dichotomy, I noticed that my first sentence disproves this premise by counterexample. I didn't write this comment with a patronizing or demeaning attitude. I can see why you would take it that way, because I can see a person writing a thing like that with a snarky attitude, but I did not.
- vacri 14y ago
  To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. That intent need not be conscious. Second-class citizens the world over suffer from being demeaned without conscious effort. What you should have said in your first comment is what you said here: why you think it's low quality. I do not agree with you about your several 'no one is arguing', because I think that they are. If you phrase it the way you do philosophically, of course people will say they're not doing that, but in their criticism of Tovalds (/RMS/whoever), many folks refuse to take content because of context. While no-one is saying he should take bad code to be nice, there is a sentiment of opinion-as-a-democracy. Your counterexample is just as bad as that you decry because instead of Torvalds style (blunt but informative), you were just saying "I'm ignoring your comments without giving you any reasons". If I submit something and it's rejected, I'd much rather receive the former than the latter, because then at least I know why. Would people really prefer a stoic Torvalds that just stonewalled commits he didn't like without explaining why?