6 ms·

As a top-voted dissenting opinion on Dave's piece yesterday, I find myself compelled to chime in. > I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people wh

As a top-voted dissenting opinion on Dave's piece yesterday, I find myself compelled to chime in. > I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people who upvote them, supposedly "think" about me. If that's true, why 750 words on the subject? The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. I will say again what I said yesterday – his post "about" Marissa Mayer was something I can only characterize as whiney. We can call it other things if that's less offensive: petulant, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing, perhaps. But the sense of entitlement to the respect and admiration of other people was something that dripped off of the post, and then off of his comments, and is a recurring theme, to my eye, of the man's writing. His poor rhetorical choices – name-dropping, specifically – overshadowed his point. That's the gamble you make when writing headline-driven link bait. But guess what? Fuck me, because I'm just some guy on the internet. But guess what else? So is Dave. Participating in a technology doesn't afford a permanent apotheosis to all of one's self and works. Your words must still carry their own water. There's effective persuasion and then there's ineffective persuasion. Those outcomes vary depending on the audience. Now we all have a choice: we can tightly corral our words. We can be selective in our audience, we can dole out our rhetoric with caution and precision. Or we can blast that shit out to the whole of the world. Now, Dave is quite excited to tell us how he helped make such a feat possible. And the consequence of his great work is we all get to talk about it. And sometimes we're not going to agree. Sometimes we're not going to worship. And that's life. I take the point very well that HN comments can be pretty toxic. But a lot of the dissent around what gets posted from Dave Winer seems pretty legit. Even PG has weighed in on his poor attitude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1644147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1644147

Udo 13y ago
> Sometimes we're not going to worship. It's not about worship. It's about civility and making an effort to write comments to a higher standard.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal. I personally find Dave's attitude of self-entitlement to be very toxic. Coming first doesn't elevate you above reproach or scrutiny. Success and progress require questioning and even defying authority. I'm incredibly distrustful of anyone who would discourage that. So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves. As a human being, I'm incredibly full of shit. On an ongoing basis. And often times I don't know it. So I kinda need people to point it out to me. This goes for nearly everyone else too. Anyone who says otherwise, who suggests they're above that for any reason, is trying to sell you something.
  - Udo 13y ago
    > I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal. But that's also the problem. HN has a way of rewarding toxic comments. I particularly notice this in drive-by-comments where presumably-long-time users create a new account just to make a flame post. Turns out, this kind of cloak and dagger isn't even needed most of the time, because you can see how they're getting rewarded for this. Is that really the kind of community we want to be? I'm far from saying your standard sucks, by the way. You can sometimes come across as very harsh, and so can I - but I don't think our comments were the lowest ones yesterday. Still, I must admit that in hindsight I wish I would have done better. > So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves. I didn't see it that way. I think what should be demanded is a more constructive discussion with less ad hominem attacks. Constructive doesn't mean worshipping or even praising, it means discussing based on merit and facts. I also believe we could demand less pettiness of ourselves. For example, a minute ago someone just downvoted all the comments I made today. That may be a valid interaction, but it reeks of vindictiveness. It might have been more productive to invest that same effort into posting a dissenting opinion.
    - Fuzzwah 13y ago
      I had a quick look at using the hnsearch api to build some kind of filtered return of comments, which removed posts from any user who had just created the account (or had a <1 avg karma), IE: drive by accounts. I couldn't work it out quick enough to warrant further time investment, because I'm not convinced if it is actually a good solution. Having not been in the same situation as Dave Winer I don't know how I'd actually respond. I like to think that I've been on the internet long enough to realize that toxic anon comments should roll off like water on a duck. But maybe I'd get super depressed and go cry in a corner. I probably won't find out any time soon, because I have nothing which would gather a huge focus on HN. Final question on the end of my ramble, is this all #famouspeopleproblems?
brudgers 13y ago
You don't hold Winer in high regard. That fact is not very interesting. Paul Graham's opinion doesn't change that. Fascinating is not communicative. Being unrepentant doesn't make you unique either. Share your snowflake. Doing so is what makes Winer's blog interesting. Laziness, impatience and hubris - he's like any other programmer, only more so.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  Paul Graham's opinion matters inasmuch as Winer is appealing to Graham's authority to insulate him from criticism that makes him uncomfortable.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    I didn't say Paul Graham's opinion didn't matter. I said that congruence between it and yours would not make yours more interesting.
    - danilocampos 13y ago
      Why should being interesting be a primary goal?
      - brudgers 13y ago
        If one is defending their writing as writing, then what else is there as far as the reader is concerned. On the other hand if one is just kicking the dog, a blog might be more appropriate than HN given the scaffold of values Graham has said he wishes to establish. [Graham's opinions are interesting because they are enforceable]. That being said, the question of whether one should or should not work on Graham's scaffold is another question altogether about which diverse opinions share the common feature of uninterstingness.
        danilocampos 13y ago
        I guess that's fair. My impulses in writing are generally selfish, though – I write mostly to resolve questions or annoyances in my mind. But secondarily, yes, as an exercise to test my knack for persuasion, so your feedback on being interesting is well taken. I positively relish your rhetorical style, by the way.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
> I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people who upvote them, supposedly "think" about me. If that's true, why 750 words on the subject? The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. 1) If someone wrote a scathing criticism about you on the internet, in a thread about you on the internet, it might be worth responding to. Writing 750 words takes a decent programmer very little time. This point seems petty and childish on your part. 2) I could not disagree more. Did you even read what he wrote? He said that he was annoyed you guys were making conclusions based on half truths and that you didn't know what you are talking about, which is factually correct. Your response is that "his accomplishments somehow elevate his words beyond criticism". So disingenuous.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  I can see why you'd feel that way, but I'm specifically referencing his conduct in threads when I describe his sense of self-elevation. To wit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5739469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5739469 If you had to reach a certain level of accomplishment in order to engage in criticism, the world would be pretty dull indeed. There's also intellectual dishonesty there. Marissa Mayer is infinitely more accomplished than he but he nonetheless criticizes her in his post, especially the cheap line where he telepathically infers her associates were embarrassed when she left the call.
icarus_drowning 13y ago
The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. This is exactly why Dave Winer wrote this post. The thing is, he probably has a point in criticizing the community. But he has a longstanding inability to respond to criticism properly, to the point where he just insults and name-calls people who disagree with him. This is why he wants a twitter like "block" from HN. Because he'd rather block HN and the people who take issue with his ideas than actually have an argument. [UPDATED: fixed poor wording]
rockmeamedee 13y ago
I'm another guy on the internet, and I just want to tell you, you don't have to be mean to people on the internet. You don't have to write nice things to everybody, but mean things just suck. Writing mean things just makes the world more mean. I'd rather not read mean things, and I'm sure you'd rather not write mean things. There's too little time in life for that. How do you think Dave's going to take this post? He writes that HN is full of people just attacking him. > The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. Bam, right in the nuts. Fuck you, and fuck your accomplishments. I'm sorry if my post sounds mean, I really want you to have the happiest possible life and a great time here. But if his post is terrible, you don't have to pollute your head with it and pollute my head by writing mean things about it. I don't come here to read wishy washy "great job dude!" posts, but I don't come here to gossip about how people think they've got a "permanent apotheosis" or whatever. He's just a dude on the internet, you're just a dude on the internet. Be nice to each other. Life is too short to do otherwise. Best of luck!
- danilocampos 13y ago
  Do you think he was nice to Marissa Mayer in his post?
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Do you think that absolves you from being nice to him?
    - danilocampos 13y ago
      Absolutely. Live by the sword, etc. And I feel the same applies to me. I heard many candid responses. Didn't agree with all of them. Learned from some. Which is the way it's supposed to work.
      - MartinCron 13y ago
        Another person's transgressions doesn't absolve you from being civil in response. That's what civilization means. It's not always easy, but it's an ideal we should hold ourselves to if we want our community to be a place worth spending time.
MartinCron 13y ago
It feels like you're creating this false dichotomy between worship and destruction. The fact that some other people on the Internet may afford Dave Winer more respect than you think he deserves is not a problem that needs to be solved. Even if it were a problem that needed to be solved, the "I'm gonna take him down a peg" approach creates an entirely new, bigger problem.
- davewiner 13y ago
  I'd love to hear the true story behind why this guy has such a thing for me. As far as I know we've never met. Something is bothering him. It sure as hell isn't this blog post. Not enough there to make such a big deal about.
  - danilocampos 13y ago
    The true story isn't anything more than I think your writing would be a whole lot more effective if you weren't so impressed by yourself. Your blog reads like an ongoing hagiography of the sort the North Koreans would write. While that vanity gets tiring, it's not a crime. What's maddening is your lack of intellectually honest engagement of critique on that or any other matter. And your position, implied by your comments, that others cannot disagree unless their accomplishments somehow match yours is frankly stomach-turning from the perspective of a hacker culture that's all about upsetting the status quo. I went on at great length here if that's interesting to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5744686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5744686
    - takluyver 13y ago
      I've just gone and read through a few recent entries from Dave's blog. I can see some name dropping, but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not a self-serving hagiography, at least from my sample. He's proud of what he's done, but I expect a degree of that in a blog. If you don't like his style of writing, you don't have to read it. You accuse him of refusing to engage with criticism, which is quite a serious claim in a community that prides itself on rational discourse. Other commenters have also alluded to this, though I've not seen evidence for it. There's a fine line between critical responses that you should engage with and personal attacks that can be ignored. Your comment here doesn't read like constructive criticism to me.
mindcrime 13y ago
As someone who downvoted your post yesterday, I'll chime in and say: Attack the argument, not the person. The post you made comes off, to me, as an attack on Dave Winer - the person - not a disagreement with a point he made in his article. There just isn't any need for personal attacks here. If you disagree with the point he was getting at, you could have said so, and made your argument for why you disagree, without attacking Dave personally.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  Dave's writing was all about him. I generally respect and understand what you're saying, but this is a unique case. He sought to elevate himself above Mayer by painting her in an unflattering light – timed to coincide with a moment of her prominence. That's tedious.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Dave's writing was all about him. So what? I generally respect and understand what you're saying, but this is a unique case. I don't see anything unique about this, that justifies personal attacks on anybody (Dave Winer or otherwise). I mean, I get that you see Dave's post as constituting an attack of sorts on Marissa, and that you think playing the vengeance card here is supported. But not everybody saw what he wrote as particularly negative towards Marissa, and many (most) of us got that the real point he was making was contained at the very end of the original post, and were quite content to argue that point. There's just no need for using HN comments to launch some sort of personal vendetta against Dave Winer (or anybody else) over something in a blog post. If you have some sort of personal grudge against the man, email him and challenge him to a pistol duel at high-noon, or something. But calling him names, insulting him, mocking his name, etc. on here isn't a positive for anybody.
    - danilocampos 13y ago
      I just think his writing is self-aggrandizing to the detriment of his argument. What's the point of comments on his stories if we can't talk about that?
redthrowaway 13y ago
I downvoted your comment on that thread, because I found it representative of the kind of drive-by flaming that's become endemic on HN. I was going to reply to you, but didn't feel that doing so would bring anything new to the discussion or lead to anything other than a flame war. So instead I'll say it here: what sucked about your comment was not that you dared criticize the Great Dave Winer. What sucked is that you did so in a mean-spirited, dismissive tone. You can get the same point across without being a dick, and as much as it may seem like pointless platitudery, saying things like, "I get where you're coming from, but..." and, "it's hard to tell solely from what's written, but my impression is..." really do let you deliver the message in a way that's less likely to offend, and more likely to be heeded. Parsimony in code is good. Parsimony in interpersonal communication can come across as brusque, dickish, and dismissive. It's worth thinking about how what you write is perceived, in addition to saying what you want to say.

Udo 13y ago

> Sometimes we're not going to worship. It's not about worship. It's about civility and making an effort to write comments to a higher standard.

danilocampos 13y ago
I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal. I personally find Dave's attitude of self-entitlement to be very toxic. Coming first doesn't elevate you above reproach or scrutiny. Success and progress require questioning and even defying authority. I'm incredibly distrustful of anyone who would discourage that. So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves. As a human being, I'm incredibly full of shit. On an ongoing basis. And often times I don't know it. So I kinda need people to point it out to me. This goes for nearly everyone else too. Anyone who says otherwise, who suggests they're above that for any reason, is trying to sell you something.
- Udo 13y ago
  > I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal. But that's also the problem. HN has a way of rewarding toxic comments. I particularly notice this in drive-by-comments where presumably-long-time users create a new account just to make a flame post. Turns out, this kind of cloak and dagger isn't even needed most of the time, because you can see how they're getting rewarded for this. Is that really the kind of community we want to be? I'm far from saying your standard sucks, by the way. You can sometimes come across as very harsh, and so can I - but I don't think our comments were the lowest ones yesterday. Still, I must admit that in hindsight I wish I would have done better. > So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves. I didn't see it that way. I think what should be demanded is a more constructive discussion with less ad hominem attacks. Constructive doesn't mean worshipping or even praising, it means discussing based on merit and facts. I also believe we could demand less pettiness of ourselves. For example, a minute ago someone just downvoted all the comments I made today. That may be a valid interaction, but it reeks of vindictiveness. It might have been more productive to invest that same effort into posting a dissenting opinion.
  - Fuzzwah 13y ago
    I had a quick look at using the hnsearch api to build some kind of filtered return of comments, which removed posts from any user who had just created the account (or had a <1 avg karma), IE: drive by accounts. I couldn't work it out quick enough to warrant further time investment, because I'm not convinced if it is actually a good solution. Having not been in the same situation as Dave Winer I don't know how I'd actually respond. I like to think that I've been on the internet long enough to realize that toxic anon comments should roll off like water on a duck. But maybe I'd get super depressed and go cry in a corner. I probably won't find out any time soon, because I have nothing which would gather a huge focus on HN. Final question on the end of my ramble, is this all #famouspeopleproblems?

brudgers 13y ago

You don't hold Winer in high regard. That fact is not very interesting. Paul Graham's opinion doesn't change that. Fascinating is not communicative. Being unrepentant doesn't make you unique either. Share your snowflake. Doing so is what makes Winer's blog interesting. Laziness, impatience and hubris - he's like any other programmer, only more so.

danilocampos 13y ago
Paul Graham's opinion matters inasmuch as Winer is appealing to Graham's authority to insulate him from criticism that makes him uncomfortable.
- brudgers 13y ago
  I didn't say Paul Graham's opinion didn't matter. I said that congruence between it and yours would not make yours more interesting.
  - danilocampos 13y ago
    Why should being interesting be a primary goal?
    - brudgers 13y ago
      If one is defending their writing as writing, then what else is there as far as the reader is concerned. On the other hand if one is just kicking the dog, a blog might be more appropriate than HN given the scaffold of values Graham has said he wishes to establish. [Graham's opinions are interesting because they are enforceable]. That being said, the question of whether one should or should not work on Graham's scaffold is another question altogether about which diverse opinions share the common feature of uninterstingness.
      - danilocampos 13y ago
        I guess that's fair. My impulses in writing are generally selfish, though – I write mostly to resolve questions or annoyances in my mind. But secondarily, yes, as an exercise to test my knack for persuasion, so your feedback on being interesting is well taken. I positively relish your rhetorical style, by the way.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

> I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people who upvote them, supposedly "think" about me. If that's true, why 750 words on the subject? The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. 1) If someone wrote a scathing criticism about you on the internet, in a thread about you on the internet, it might be worth responding to. Writing 750 words takes a decent programmer very little time. This point seems petty and childish on your part. 2) I could not disagree more. Did you even read what he wrote? He said that he was annoyed you guys were making conclusions based on half truths and that you didn't know what you are talking about, which is factually correct. Your response is that "his accomplishments somehow elevate his words beyond criticism". So disingenuous.

danilocampos 13y ago
I can see why you'd feel that way, but I'm specifically referencing his conduct in threads when I describe his sense of self-elevation. To wit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5739469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5739469 If you had to reach a certain level of accomplishment in order to engage in criticism, the world would be pretty dull indeed. There's also intellectual dishonesty there. Marissa Mayer is infinitely more accomplished than he but he nonetheless criticizes her in his post, especially the cheap line where he telepathically infers her associates were embarrassed when she left the call.

icarus_drowning 13y ago

The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. This is exactly why Dave Winer wrote this post. The thing is, he probably has a point in criticizing the community. But he has a longstanding inability to respond to criticism properly, to the point where he just insults and name-calls people who disagree with him. This is why he wants a twitter like "block" from HN. Because he'd rather block HN and the people who take issue with his ideas than actually have an argument. [UPDATED: fixed poor wording]

rockmeamedee 13y ago

I'm another guy on the internet, and I just want to tell you, you don't have to be mean to people on the internet. You don't have to write nice things to everybody, but mean things just suck. Writing mean things just makes the world more mean. I'd rather not read mean things, and I'm sure you'd rather not write mean things. There's too little time in life for that. How do you think Dave's going to take this post? He writes that HN is full of people just attacking him. > The issue I take with Dave Winer is that he seems to feel as though his accomplishments or contributions somehow elevate his words beyond criticism. Bam, right in the nuts. Fuck you, and fuck your accomplishments. I'm sorry if my post sounds mean, I really want you to have the happiest possible life and a great time here. But if his post is terrible, you don't have to pollute your head with it and pollute my head by writing mean things about it. I don't come here to read wishy washy "great job dude!" posts, but I don't come here to gossip about how people think they've got a "permanent apotheosis" or whatever. He's just a dude on the internet, you're just a dude on the internet. Be nice to each other. Life is too short to do otherwise. Best of luck!

danilocampos 13y ago
Do you think he was nice to Marissa Mayer in his post?
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Do you think that absolves you from being nice to him?
  - danilocampos 13y ago
    Absolutely. Live by the sword, etc. And I feel the same applies to me. I heard many candid responses. Didn't agree with all of them. Learned from some. Which is the way it's supposed to work.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      Another person's transgressions doesn't absolve you from being civil in response. That's what civilization means. It's not always easy, but it's an ideal we should hold ourselves to if we want our community to be a place worth spending time.

MartinCron 13y ago

It feels like you're creating this false dichotomy between worship and destruction. The fact that some other people on the Internet may afford Dave Winer more respect than you think he deserves is not a problem that needs to be solved. Even if it were a problem that needed to be solved, the "I'm gonna take him down a peg" approach creates an entirely new, bigger problem.

davewiner 13y ago
I'd love to hear the true story behind why this guy has such a thing for me. As far as I know we've never met. Something is bothering him. It sure as hell isn't this blog post. Not enough there to make such a big deal about.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  The true story isn't anything more than I think your writing would be a whole lot more effective if you weren't so impressed by yourself. Your blog reads like an ongoing hagiography of the sort the North Koreans would write. While that vanity gets tiring, it's not a crime. What's maddening is your lack of intellectually honest engagement of critique on that or any other matter. And your position, implied by your comments, that others cannot disagree unless their accomplishments somehow match yours is frankly stomach-turning from the perspective of a hacker culture that's all about upsetting the status quo. I went on at great length here if that's interesting to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5744686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5744686
  - takluyver 13y ago
    I've just gone and read through a few recent entries from Dave's blog. I can see some name dropping, but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not a self-serving hagiography, at least from my sample. He's proud of what he's done, but I expect a degree of that in a blog. If you don't like his style of writing, you don't have to read it. You accuse him of refusing to engage with criticism, which is quite a serious claim in a community that prides itself on rational discourse. Other commenters have also alluded to this, though I've not seen evidence for it. There's a fine line between critical responses that you should engage with and personal attacks that can be ignored. Your comment here doesn't read like constructive criticism to me.

mindcrime 13y ago

As someone who downvoted your post yesterday, I'll chime in and say: Attack the argument, not the person. The post you made comes off, to me, as an attack on Dave Winer - the person - not a disagreement with a point he made in his article. There just isn't any need for personal attacks here. If you disagree with the point he was getting at, you could have said so, and made your argument for why you disagree, without attacking Dave personally.

danilocampos 13y ago
Dave's writing was all about him. I generally respect and understand what you're saying, but this is a unique case. He sought to elevate himself above Mayer by painting her in an unflattering light – timed to coincide with a moment of her prominence. That's tedious.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Dave's writing was all about him. So what? I generally respect and understand what you're saying, but this is a unique case. I don't see anything unique about this, that justifies personal attacks on anybody (Dave Winer or otherwise). I mean, I get that you see Dave's post as constituting an attack of sorts on Marissa, and that you think playing the vengeance card here is supported. But not everybody saw what he wrote as particularly negative towards Marissa, and many (most) of us got that the real point he was making was contained at the very end of the original post, and were quite content to argue that point. There's just no need for using HN comments to launch some sort of personal vendetta against Dave Winer (or anybody else) over something in a blog post. If you have some sort of personal grudge against the man, email him and challenge him to a pistol duel at high-noon, or something. But calling him names, insulting him, mocking his name, etc. on here isn't a positive for anybody.
  - danilocampos 13y ago
    I just think his writing is self-aggrandizing to the detriment of his argument. What's the point of comments on his stories if we can't talk about that?

redthrowaway 13y ago

I downvoted your comment on that thread, because I found it representative of the kind of drive-by flaming that's become endemic on HN. I was going to reply to you, but didn't feel that doing so would bring anything new to the discussion or lead to anything other than a flame war. So instead I'll say it here: what sucked about your comment was not that you dared criticize the Great Dave Winer. What sucked is that you did so in a mean-spirited, dismissive tone. You can get the same point across without being a dick, and as much as it may seem like pointless platitudery, saying things like, "I get where you're coming from, but..." and, "it's hard to tell solely from what's written, but my impression is..." really do let you deliver the message in a way that's less likely to offend, and more likely to be heeded. Parsimony in code is good. Parsimony in interpersonal communication can come across as brusque, dickish, and dismissive. It's worth thinking about how what you write is perceived, in addition to saying what you want to say.