3 ms·

Oh yeah, more articles about Bootstrap 3 please. I hear it got released or something, and it has flat buttons. Great minds could be focused on better things.

Oh yeah, more articles about Bootstrap 3 please. I hear it got released or something, and it has flat buttons. Great minds could be focused on better things. For that, great minds would first need to stop patting themselves on the back, and be concerned about more than what's on their desk or in their bank accounts. Supposedly great minds built drones and surveillance technology the not so great minds get to clean up after. Oh so great minds are giving politicians who can hardly spell "web" correctly these fantastic toys because... hmmm, why, actually? Maybe it would help if you defined "great mind" first? Consider Einstein, Russell or Chomsky, for example. Consider Socrates or just about anyone... If they had two brain cells to rub together, chances are good they cared about politics. Saying that politics doesn't have any place on HN is itself a political stance in a way, and it's hardly like all stories are about politics now.. we simply have those, too. What's so horrible about that? What kind of fucked up beauty sleep does it disturb?

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Then define "great mind", define "better things"; put your mouth where your downvotes are.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Are you asking why you got downvotes? I don't know, but perhaps it's because of tone. > Oh yeah, more articles about Bootstrap 3 please. I hear it got released or something, and it has flat buttons. There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial. You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work. Your final paragraph is, again, weirdly combative. > What's so horrible about that? What kind of fucked up beauty sleep does it disturb? Someone suggests that there are too many political articles on HN, and that it has affected the tone of the site. To respond like that is an excellent demonstration of the problem. Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I don't know, but perhaps it's because of tone. Ah okay, I just wanted to makes sure it wasn't something more substantial. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg huh ) There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial. So pompousness about how "great minds" should have "better things" to do than care about politics is okay, injecting some reality into that isn't? If you don't notice such self-congratulary fluff, of course you'll find a response to it "weirdly aggressive and combative". If you don't consider the initial post adversarial, then of course my response must seem weird to you. It's not that I want to pick on Bootstrap, that was just one example of a lot I could have made. The very concept of making a CSS framework might be a "new idea", the very first implementation of that idea is already kinda pedestrian, but further releases, or the 50th CSS framework? Not new, not intellectually stimulating. And you know what? I don't usually complain about any of that, ever, much less making submissions about it; until someone says that having like 5-10% politics is just too much, that "great minds" can do better. Then I mention it, because the disconnect is just too glaring to ignore. You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work. Which in turn misses the point that many people did NOT opt out, which is why we're talking about this now. Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing. Oh, so it's posts now, and you calling other people idiots on my behalf makes my posts "weirdly aggressive"? Good thing I don't get to act as some kind of scapegoat. And how is just downvoting instead of discussing not the equivalent of tone? How is it not way below that even? None of this adds up. But sure, I don't eat chalk, I don't say "great job!" when I see a turd, and I don't care about the downvotes themselves; I just prefer their reasons mirrored into the medium of text where they are actually visible and can be responded to. Still not a single word on what a "great mind" is, and what "better things" they have to discuss. Oh well.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Then define "great mind", define "better things"; put your mouth where your downvotes are.

DanBC 13y ago
Are you asking why you got downvotes? I don't know, but perhaps it's because of tone. > Oh yeah, more articles about Bootstrap 3 please. I hear it got released or something, and it has flat buttons. There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial. You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work. Your final paragraph is, again, weirdly combative. > What's so horrible about that? What kind of fucked up beauty sleep does it disturb? Someone suggests that there are too many political articles on HN, and that it has affected the tone of the site. To respond like that is an excellent demonstration of the problem. Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I don't know, but perhaps it's because of tone. Ah okay, I just wanted to makes sure it wasn't something more substantial. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg huh ) There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial. So pompousness about how "great minds" should have "better things" to do than care about politics is okay, injecting some reality into that isn't? If you don't notice such self-congratulary fluff, of course you'll find a response to it "weirdly aggressive and combative". If you don't consider the initial post adversarial, then of course my response must seem weird to you. It's not that I want to pick on Bootstrap, that was just one example of a lot I could have made. The very concept of making a CSS framework might be a "new idea", the very first implementation of that idea is already kinda pedestrian, but further releases, or the 50th CSS framework? Not new, not intellectually stimulating. And you know what? I don't usually complain about any of that, ever, much less making submissions about it; until someone says that having like 5-10% politics is just too much, that "great minds" can do better. Then I mention it, because the disconnect is just too glaring to ignore. You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work. Which in turn misses the point that many people did NOT opt out, which is why we're talking about this now. Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing. Oh, so it's posts now, and you calling other people idiots on my behalf makes my posts "weirdly aggressive"? Good thing I don't get to act as some kind of scapegoat. And how is just downvoting instead of discussing not the equivalent of tone? How is it not way below that even? None of this adds up. But sure, I don't eat chalk, I don't say "great job!" when I see a turd, and I don't care about the downvotes themselves; I just prefer their reasons mirrored into the medium of text where they are actually visible and can be responded to. Still not a single word on what a "great mind" is, and what "better things" they have to discuss. Oh well.