4 ms·

No! Of course it's not okay to hurt somebody. If I made it sound like that I fucked up big-time. What I said was that it's the attitude above that leads to phy

No! Of course it's not okay to hurt somebody. If I made it sound like that I fucked up big-time. What I said was that it's the attitude above that leads to physical violence. When somebody starts wanting to punch somebody in the face, it comes from that particular level of dickery. I am not at all a violent person. I don't fight people, I don't hit people. I don't have a personality that leads to fights. The closest I get to violence is posting angry things online. And I'm certain that writing all these responses at 7 in the morning might have dimmed my writing a bit, but I never once implied violence. What I said, again, was this: If we were having this argument in real life and I was a more naturally violent person, I'd probably hit you, and then in your eyes I'd become the bully and you wouldn't be guilty of anything. That's not me threatening. In fact, the one "threat" I made was the one where I lock out my Hacker News account because debates like this are a waste where nobody learns a damn thing. The point I was making was that chairface's comment was aggravating and glossing over points in a way that was smarmy and obnoxious. (His response to the parent post clarified a lot, so props to him.) That's an attitude that's not just on Hacker News. A friend of mine had it when he'd constantly pester a violent kid just to provoke a reaction. He'd get clocked in the eye and tell us all what a savage that other kid was. The point of my stupid poorly written blog post was that this is a common attitude amongst nerds when they handle things socially. They'll do things that they know will alienate them because they think the alienation is forthcoming anyway. In doing that they give themselves some "control" over their hopeless state. I mean, I'm certain I'm talking to somebody who knows what I'm talking about. I've seen a lot of people dismiss your blog posts because of the "ZED'S SO FUCKING AWESOME" logo or because of your many elongated, poorly written rants. I'm too lazy to search back, but I've gotten into a lot of Zed debates on this site where you get slammed because your old web site was just begging for people to call you immature. You obviously knew that would happen and you went on doing it anyway, so you fit into the category of people I'm talking about here. You're quoting me saying a lot of shit I didn't say, Zed. Cut that out; if you're going to get pissed off at me get pissed off at me for what I believe. I never said violence was defensible. I have friends who have been molested and harassed and hurt. I think it's one of the most terrible things there is. And this entire argument is such a loose tangent from the argument I originally made that it was stupid of me to respond in the first place. I'm aware of that. There's a difference between an abused woman and an abused nerd. Nerd abuse is largely petty in nature. I know maybe two kids in my nerd group who got into fights, ever, and neither of those was a case of random abuse: both sides wanted to pummel the other side. So when the argument sifted away from petty and towards serious, my response should have been: that's not the same thing. Abuse and rape stem from an entirely other side of human existence than things like teasing and name-calling. Child abuse is not name-calling. If you're suggesting that calling somebody a name is child abuse, you're off your fucking rocker. If a nerd is getting hit and hurt for what he's saying and doing, there's something pathological behind that happening; when a nerd is ostracized because he acts like a jackass, he's responsible for its happening. The point I was trying to make, half-asleep, earlier today was that people who are getting seriously abused should take action to stop the abuse. If you're getting beat up or raped then you should take action to stop it from happening, because otherwise you're letting a guilty person get away with a crime. The only blame on the other person is letting the criminal get away. They aren't responsible for the horrible things being done to them. But now I'm just repeating myself, and to be honest I can't tell if you just flew off at me because you think I said a terrible thing or if, like your critics claim, flipping out just gets you off. If it's the former, then I've clarified myself, and I'm sorry for sounding like I meant something I absolutely do not. If it's the latter, we've got nothing left to talk about.

patcito 17y ago
> You obviously knew that would happen and you went on doing it anyway, so you fit into the category of people I'm talking about here. Or maybe he just doesn't care what people think on this matter.
- rorymarinich 17y ago
  If he didn't care, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to make a blog theme that screamed "Obnoxious asshole" and then gone on to rant about things that got him called an obnoxious asshole. I'm not saying that those two things make him an obnoxious asshole, but then, Zed never once assumed the attitude of "I can't believe people are calling me an obnoxious asshole." I'm certain he didn't care that they were, and so in his mind it's totally okay. If he complained about people not calling him sensitive with that logo of his, then I'd call him out for being a hypocrite. That's what I'm doing with nerds: I think that nerds go out of their way to be disliked and then complain that nobody likes them.
zedshaw 17y ago
Alright, let's walk through your little essay on violence, which gets progressively worse as you run your mouth: > You'll be an absolute snot just so that you can gain the upper hand in an argument. And so you might reach a point where I and people like me get tired of your bullshit and walk away, and then you'll declare yourself the victor because you were the last person to make a post in my comment thread, but all you're doing is making the person on the other side want to punch yourself in the face. Point #1, disagreement means that you have the right to punch someone in the face. Although, I can't understand why I'd want to punch myself in the face if I was winning an argument against you. > If we were having this argument in real life and I was a more naturally violent person, I'd probably hit you, and then in your eyes I'd become the bully and you wouldn't be guilty of anything. Point #2, debate with you and your gross stupid generalizations gives you the right to be violent, AND when you commit violence on someone else they should feel guilty because they deserve it. Their accusations of oppression and violence are unwarranted because they dared to piss you off with words. > If you're guilty about being arrogant and annoying, then when you get teased and beaten up it's not causeless. You caused this. And the other side is more at fault then you are, but don't act like you're a saint. Point #3, you believe that harming someone physically and emotionally is a valid response to verbal remarks, and that this violence is "not causeless". Doesn't matter what "causes" it, it's the wrong response, therefore the cause is irrelevant. Additionally, you believe that a person does not have the right to non-violently be as weird as they want. You think they should adapt their behavior to please the more violent members of our society. >> Should battered wives admit that they are partially at fault because they annoyed their husbands? > If you get beaten and do nothing about it, it's your fault that it goes on. See, two sides of the same struggle can both be guilty. The husband is more at fault, but if the battered wife acts like there's nothing she can do then she's to blame for it going on. Point #4, victims very commonly are, by definition, unable to defend themselves. Either due to psychological controls, physical domination, or economic realities. What worries me the most about this statement is that you claim both sides are guilty, which implies that you feel some women deserve the beatings. If you knew anything about abused women and children you would know that no amount of changing stops the abuse. It is entirely the fault of the abuser because they are the one with the power, and they are the ones using it. > Same with rape. If you get raped and do nothing about it, you're letting the other guy get away. The other guy isn't innocent. This isn't a blame game where it's the victim's fault entirely. But the victim does not exist in a vacuum, and the fact that the problem still exists suggests that in some way the victim is complicit about the problem. Point #5, you believe that victims of rape did not do enough to defend themselves, and therefore are complicit and responsible for their lack of skills. Obviously your fictionalized and trivialized movie version of rape doesn't involve nearly as much violence as it really has. > One day I might write something about how much bullies suck, but other people are already doing this. I don't like being generic. And with this, in one single statement, you define how much of an idiot you are. If you don't like being generic, then why the hell were you nothing but a bag of gross generalizations in your stupid little essay?

patcito 17y ago

> You obviously knew that would happen and you went on doing it anyway, so you fit into the category of people I'm talking about here. Or maybe he just doesn't care what people think on this matter.

rorymarinich 17y ago
If he didn't care, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to make a blog theme that screamed "Obnoxious asshole" and then gone on to rant about things that got him called an obnoxious asshole. I'm not saying that those two things make him an obnoxious asshole, but then, Zed never once assumed the attitude of "I can't believe people are calling me an obnoxious asshole." I'm certain he didn't care that they were, and so in his mind it's totally okay. If he complained about people not calling him sensitive with that logo of his, then I'd call him out for being a hypocrite. That's what I'm doing with nerds: I think that nerds go out of their way to be disliked and then complain that nobody likes them.

zedshaw 17y ago

Alright, let's walk through your little essay on violence, which gets progressively worse as you run your mouth: > You'll be an absolute snot just so that you can gain the upper hand in an argument. And so you might reach a point where I and people like me get tired of your bullshit and walk away, and then you'll declare yourself the victor because you were the last person to make a post in my comment thread, but all you're doing is making the person on the other side want to punch yourself in the face. Point #1, disagreement means that you have the right to punch someone in the face. Although, I can't understand why I'd want to punch myself in the face if I was winning an argument against you. > If we were having this argument in real life and I was a more naturally violent person, I'd probably hit you, and then in your eyes I'd become the bully and you wouldn't be guilty of anything. Point #2, debate with you and your gross stupid generalizations gives you the right to be violent, AND when you commit violence on someone else they should feel guilty because they deserve it. Their accusations of oppression and violence are unwarranted because they dared to piss you off with words. > If you're guilty about being arrogant and annoying, then when you get teased and beaten up it's not causeless. You caused this. And the other side is more at fault then you are, but don't act like you're a saint. Point #3, you believe that harming someone physically and emotionally is a valid response to verbal remarks, and that this violence is "not causeless". Doesn't matter what "causes" it, it's the wrong response, therefore the cause is irrelevant. Additionally, you believe that a person does not have the right to non-violently be as weird as they want. You think they should adapt their behavior to please the more violent members of our society. >> Should battered wives admit that they are partially at fault because they annoyed their husbands? > If you get beaten and do nothing about it, it's your fault that it goes on. See, two sides of the same struggle can both be guilty. The husband is more at fault, but if the battered wife acts like there's nothing she can do then she's to blame for it going on. Point #4, victims very commonly are, by definition, unable to defend themselves. Either due to psychological controls, physical domination, or economic realities. What worries me the most about this statement is that you claim both sides are guilty, which implies that you feel some women deserve the beatings. If you knew anything about abused women and children you would know that no amount of changing stops the abuse. It is entirely the fault of the abuser because they are the one with the power, and they are the ones using it. > Same with rape. If you get raped and do nothing about it, you're letting the other guy get away. The other guy isn't innocent. This isn't a blame game where it's the victim's fault entirely. But the victim does not exist in a vacuum, and the fact that the problem still exists suggests that in some way the victim is complicit about the problem. Point #5, you believe that victims of rape did not do enough to defend themselves, and therefore are complicit and responsible for their lack of skills. Obviously your fictionalized and trivialized movie version of rape doesn't involve nearly as much violence as it really has. > One day I might write something about how much bullies suck, but other people are already doing this. I don't like being generic. And with this, in one single statement, you define how much of an idiot you are. If you don't like being generic, then why the hell were you nothing but a bag of gross generalizations in your stupid little essay?