4 ms·
I reckon the negative reactions are at least partly down to your wording, e.g. > there is no good work > total lack of discipline > impossible to build This
by n4r9 1y ago
I reckon the negative reactions are at least partly down to your wording, e.g.
> there is no good work
> total lack of discipline
> impossible to build
This level of absolutism is problematic for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's ambiguous: a "total" lack of discipline would entail never releasing anything. This is clearly inaccurate, and the reader is left guessing what level of discipline is implied. Secondly, without more detail, most will assume exaggeration, given that RoR sees significant commercial use. You haven't provided compelling reasons to trust your judgement over anyone else's, so users are well-justified in raising counter-examples from their experience.
You also come off as dismissive of opinions and lived experiences that differ from your own; suggesting that anyone who disagrees is a "devotee", and that concrete counter-examples are meaningless one-offs. Having been on the sharp end of this dismissiveness myself, it mostly acts to drag the discussion down. Like, fair enough, maybe you're incredibly experienced, you want to make the world a better place by passing on your wisdom, and you're tired of dealing with half-baked takes. But belittling your fellow users is not helping. And again, from my own experience, you can be quick to say that a take is half-baked even when it aligns with scholarly opinion.
- throwanem 1y agoYeah, everyone wants a treatise here, always and only on whatever they happen to disagree with. There's no kind of intellectual consistency more consistent than imposing an effectively unsatisfiable bar for standing to dissent, but letting whatever you like to hear slide without a second thought or question. Meanwhile detailed and substantive technical critiques provided by other users - critiques of the sort I learned a decade ago not to bother making - go totally ignored as I knew that they would. I don't really see why I should take that sort of thing very seriously. Do you?
- n4r9 1y agoI think if you resort less to absolutist phrasing and knee-jerk insults, you might have more fulfilling interactions with other users. Perhaps that's not really what you're looking for when you post. It's difficult to understand why you post.
- throwanem 1y agoI could explain it.
- throwanem 1y ago"It was eye-opening to see how little attention was paid to serious [people] vs hucksters," you said in a comment last week. That's a good start, and the right frame of thought in which to try to infer an answer to the question you didn't quite ask. I also realize the insult you didn't quite offer, but while there are grounds for anyone with a Ph.D. to offer me offense, breadth of knowledge is really none of them. You are an expert specialist and I respect that as it deserves, which is less than you imagine but more than you fear.
- n4r9 1y agoI simply gave some pointers on how to use less aggressive language. If you perceived a hidden insult, I'd encourage you to reflect whether that comes from the same place that the aggressive language does.
- throwanem 1y ago"Aggressive?" I would go as far as uncompromising, discourteous, perhaps even rude. But aggression? Really. Do me the courtesy of not resorting to the absurd, not at least if you mean me to go on taking you seriously.
- n4r9 1y agoYes; from what I've seen, you can be hostile, presumptuous, belitting, and confrontational. What you just posted is a good example. There's just no need for the section starting "not at least...". It's an intimidating phrase.
- throwanem 1y ago"Intimidating." I remind you this is a website, where I have publicly disclosed my real identity for years while you remain anonymous. That is your choice, of course. But this is what I mean about not taking you seriously. No remotely reasonable person could possibly believe anyone competent to participate in Hacker News and be able also to honestly claim to be intimidated by someone taking an impatient tone in mere discourse on the relative merits of programming languages, in a context where I am the one whose identity is known. Such a transparent lie would ill befit a child of five, and whatever axe you have here to grind, the way you go about it is just embarrassing. Your critique, such as it was, has been submitted, received, and evaluated as ill founded. You have no further business with me.