3 ms·
Summary: Vicious responses are lazy and should be considered ignorant until proven otherwise. I agree with you that vicious responses to different positions on
by KevinEldon 14y ago
Summary: Vicious responses are lazy and should be considered ignorant until proven otherwise.
I agree with you that vicious responses to different positions on emotionally charged issues are common. The word 'vicious' bothers me though; it's not ok to use non-arguments and threats or insults to respond to an argument. If someone told me that Abraham Lincoln was the current President of the United States I don't think I'd respond viciously... I'd tell him he was an idiot and show him some evidence on my phone. If he kept it up I think I'd just leave because I'm not responsible for someone else's idiocy. If someone argues with a more complicated position that I hold dear, then I can see how I might respond viciously if I had no actual counter-argument or if I didn't want to spend time to argue with this person. I think you're recognizing how the world works, for complex issues with a bunch of ignorant people you're likely to see very vicious responses because most people cannot articulate the reasoning behind their position or choose not to spend the time to and instead use violence (virtual or otherwise). Perhaps some have real counter-arguments and choose not to present them and instead just respond with arrogance; if so that's sad because no one is informed by better understanding.
My initial thought after reading your post was that your view is practical and accurate, that people like Antirez who care more about their primary work (Redis in this case) and not some other issue they have a perspective on (sexism in software) will be drowned out and crushed under the common view and those who choose to elevate a particular view or cause to their primary purpose. I think (with disdain) about "pundits" whose job is to promote some position regardless of its merit; people who spend their lives arguing passionately for whatever pays the most... that is ugly and works against adapting a culture to handle new ideas and situations.
EDIT: Spelling only.
- lmm 14y ago>I think (with disdain) about "pundits" whose job is to promote some position regardless of its merit; people who spend their lives arguing passionately for whatever pays the most... that is ugly and works against adapting a culture to handle new ideas and situations. I don't know; a certain degree of specialization helps society function better. Espousing contrary positions is valuable to society and at the same time emotionally draining (which is mitigated if you do it often); having it done by dedicated people seems like a win. (I felt kind of similarly about the story of the disabled guy who goes around suing places for ADA compliance as a full-time job: if we really care about making businesses accessible for the disabled, it's more efficient to have him doing the lawsuits and other disabled people getting on with their lives)