3 ms·

> 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.

> 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

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?