3 ms·

Should I send you a box of matches, perhaps you'd be interested in burning his article? There is no "right" intellectualism, thinking about things and analyzin

Should I send you a box of matches, perhaps you'd be interested in burning his article? There is no "right" intellectualism, thinking about things and analyzing things does not first have to pass through a filter created by you on what is right to think about, and what not. Your statement is awful because it advocates the creation of a limited and closed world, with only special topics being "worthy" of thought.

ngvrnd 18y ago
Well put.
unalone 18y ago
You're fighting a straw man. I never said things weren't worthy of thought, or that there is shame in thinking about really stupid things. I said that I disliked the attention it was receiving on Hacker News. To take it to one extreme, while I'd never tell somebody that writing fanfiction was bad, I wouldn't nominate it for a Pulitzer. I wouldn't give the writer awards. I recall reading something wherein a fanfic writer was complaining that the lack of published fanfiction novels was "censorship" on behalf of publishers. Similarly, is it censorship for my to say I don't want awful, nonintellectual papers on Hacker News? No. The problem with your statement (I won't call it awful) is that the flip side of intellectualism is that there are standards to be had. It means that while I can't deny people thought, I can choose to rebut the things that they say, which I attempted to do. I didn't just say "Garfield, shit, censor." I said, "I dislike this, because it makes it look like analysis is merely bullshitting about really simple things." This article isn't thought-provoking. It doesn't teach anything unless you've never seen these comics before. Even now, I doubt anybody gets anything out of the article - all they get, they get from the comics. The article is fluff. By criticizing it, I wasn't denying high schoolers the right to critique! Far from it: I was saying that while high schoolers may not be smart or discerning in the crap they write, Hacker News is, and I dislike that so many people are voting up a crap story. There's no intelligent discussion coming up. The big talk is about whether or not Garfield Minus Garfield ripped off other things (which it did). People aren't discussion the fine art of comic craft, or anything interesting comics-related. This story's taking up a slot it shouldn't, and it's absolutely one of the worse Hacker News stories I've seen. It ticks me off because it's indicative of the community. And for that matter, it ticks me off that you think it's right to bend and twist what I said. You make me out to be an intellectual Nazi. "Send me a box of matches." All the suggestions of censorship. I mean, come on. You've been here longer than I have, and still you see it necessary to respond so childishly? It annoys me that this is what this site's becoming. And my original point was, calling this intellectualism is insulting the real intellectuals. It's like calling XKCD a physics teacher.
- markessien 18y ago
  The thing here is that we have core philosophies that are different, and our statements here are indicative of these philosophies. Let me explain what I mean: In Germany it's illegal to publish or display Nazi material. I believe that we both are against the Nazi philosophy, but it appears to me that you belong to the group of people who would favour censoring such material, while I believe in absolute freedom of expression, and that such material should not be in any way illegal, and people should be free to argue for and against it. Censorship is when it is not illegal to write the material, but it's illegal to make this material available in a public forum. What you advocate is the same as the German Government policy - you want these people free to write the material you don't like, but you actively work to make it not publicly visible in a forum you frequent. I've never read a critique about comic characters, and I'm not particular interested in this particular one, but I am a very strong proponent of complete freedom of expression. The problem with your path is that it's VERY subjective. You say you don't like it, but where is the line? What if I post an article about how Hamas builds a Bomb using cow manure. This may be interesting from a hacker perspective but it will offend many sensibilities - the point of the upvote, downvote button is to act as a filter, so if enough people find it interesting, it will go to the top, no matter how loudly individuals complain. Final point : don't take my arguments seriously. I argue this dispassionately, and I don't expect you to take the points personally. Read my text critically, not emotionally.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Yeah! Of course. It's all about arguing, not about getting angry. I think that you should be free to do anything. I don't, for instance, hate Garfield, and I don't hate the people that think it's worth analyzing Garfield. On the contrary! What I dislike is that this is an awful article, and it's on Hacker News. If you were to submit a story talking about Nazis that was poorly-written and ignored entirely the fact that Nazis did what they did, I'd get annoyed if it got upvoted.

ngvrnd 18y ago

Well put.

unalone 18y ago

You're fighting a straw man. I never said things weren't worthy of thought, or that there is shame in thinking about really stupid things. I said that I disliked the attention it was receiving on Hacker News. To take it to one extreme, while I'd never tell somebody that writing fanfiction was bad, I wouldn't nominate it for a Pulitzer. I wouldn't give the writer awards. I recall reading something wherein a fanfic writer was complaining that the lack of published fanfiction novels was "censorship" on behalf of publishers. Similarly, is it censorship for my to say I don't want awful, nonintellectual papers on Hacker News? No. The problem with your statement (I won't call it awful) is that the flip side of intellectualism is that there are standards to be had. It means that while I can't deny people thought, I can choose to rebut the things that they say, which I attempted to do. I didn't just say "Garfield, shit, censor." I said, "I dislike this, because it makes it look like analysis is merely bullshitting about really simple things." This article isn't thought-provoking. It doesn't teach anything unless you've never seen these comics before. Even now, I doubt anybody gets anything out of the article - all they get, they get from the comics. The article is fluff. By criticizing it, I wasn't denying high schoolers the right to critique! Far from it: I was saying that while high schoolers may not be smart or discerning in the crap they write, Hacker News is, and I dislike that so many people are voting up a crap story. There's no intelligent discussion coming up. The big talk is about whether or not Garfield Minus Garfield ripped off other things (which it did). People aren't discussion the fine art of comic craft, or anything interesting comics-related. This story's taking up a slot it shouldn't, and it's absolutely one of the worse Hacker News stories I've seen. It ticks me off because it's indicative of the community. And for that matter, it ticks me off that you think it's right to bend and twist what I said. You make me out to be an intellectual Nazi. "Send me a box of matches." All the suggestions of censorship. I mean, come on. You've been here longer than I have, and still you see it necessary to respond so childishly? It annoys me that this is what this site's becoming. And my original point was, calling this intellectualism is insulting the real intellectuals. It's like calling XKCD a physics teacher.

markessien 18y ago
The thing here is that we have core philosophies that are different, and our statements here are indicative of these philosophies. Let me explain what I mean: In Germany it's illegal to publish or display Nazi material. I believe that we both are against the Nazi philosophy, but it appears to me that you belong to the group of people who would favour censoring such material, while I believe in absolute freedom of expression, and that such material should not be in any way illegal, and people should be free to argue for and against it. Censorship is when it is not illegal to write the material, but it's illegal to make this material available in a public forum. What you advocate is the same as the German Government policy - you want these people free to write the material you don't like, but you actively work to make it not publicly visible in a forum you frequent. I've never read a critique about comic characters, and I'm not particular interested in this particular one, but I am a very strong proponent of complete freedom of expression. The problem with your path is that it's VERY subjective. You say you don't like it, but where is the line? What if I post an article about how Hamas builds a Bomb using cow manure. This may be interesting from a hacker perspective but it will offend many sensibilities - the point of the upvote, downvote button is to act as a filter, so if enough people find it interesting, it will go to the top, no matter how loudly individuals complain. Final point : don't take my arguments seriously. I argue this dispassionately, and I don't expect you to take the points personally. Read my text critically, not emotionally.
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah! Of course. It's all about arguing, not about getting angry. I think that you should be free to do anything. I don't, for instance, hate Garfield, and I don't hate the people that think it's worth analyzing Garfield. On the contrary! What I dislike is that this is an awful article, and it's on Hacker News. If you were to submit a story talking about Nazis that was poorly-written and ignored entirely the fact that Nazis did what they did, I'd get annoyed if it got upvoted.