4 ms·

People are rejecting Umair's piece, in part, by what he's said elsewhere informally and casually. Somehow people continue using FB, and defending it, despite Zu

by selmnoo 13y ago

People are rejecting Umair's piece, in part, by what he's said elsewhere informally and casually. Somehow people continue using FB, and defending it, despite Zuck having said fairly nefarious things. To be clear, my question wasn't charged against you specifically. > However I did find two others in which he claims that white people having beards is racist, or something: https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 I did not find these tweets to be racist or strange at all. Maybe you're missing the context of what he's like as a person -- maybe that crucial information of tone is lost in pure text. I read it as more casual teasing. Considering he's a Pakistani-American, and probably associates big beards to religious Muslims in his mind, he's drawing some parallel between the two, maybe making note of the dissonant juxtaposition. But I do think he should be more careful with his wording, and make some due effort in not sounding offensive.

jlgreco 13y ago
In one of those tweets he seems to think that beards are problematic because they are some sort of Muslim culture appropriation (bizarrely ignoring the long history of beards in Europe...). In the other tweet he isn't talking about cultural appropriation or referring to any sort of Muslim connection, he seems to be taking offense to beards on white people because he thinks the beards emphasis their whiteness. The fundamental incompatibility between those comments leads me to believe that in neither case is he being sincere. He is just out to piss people off. He's 'trolling'. (Also, I suspect that most people who both know the "dumb fucks" quote, and think that it is significant, do not use Facebook. Facebook users probably mostly consist of people who have never heard the quote, have heard the quote but don't believe it, or don't think that the quote is relevant to Facebook today. Personally, I trust Zuck, so when he says I'd have to be a dumb fuck to use Facebook, I believe him...)
- selmnoo 13y ago
  Do you really think he is simply out to 'piss people off'? I'm genuinely interested in your answer. I personally don't think there are many people like that. I think the word 'troll' is overused, very, very few people out there are trolls. When I think 'troll' I think about people who join multi-player games only to cause havoc, people who join IRC channels to paste nazi ascii's. I think people who have unorthodox, or radical beliefs often mistakenly appear intentionally inflammatory, but they really aren't. So, I really don't think Umair is a troll in the traditional way. He's probably (at least in his mind) making a good faith effort to explain something, he's clearly misguided in his ways of elucidation of complicated ideas, but reducing him to a 'troll' just takes the direction of discussion down a confrontational and unproductive path. Yes, he is ignoring the long history of beards in Europe, instead focusing how beards are viewed today by specific subsets of people, and I think that's probably the source of his errors.
  - davidw 13y ago
    I think he's out to get attention, and one way to do that is to be controversial, something which he seems to have honed to a fine art. I think he must be bright to have gotten so good at it, but it does not strike me as being all that productive, either.
    - selmnoo 13y ago
      With all due respect, I think that is just a strange conspiratorial type of thinking. Did he basically find himself to the top, being a writer for HBR by just being purposely controversial? Maybe it is a strategy, but it's clearly not the end goal. It is maybe just a means to an end, that is conceivable (although unlikely, in my view). I think the way to go in instances like these is just to engage specifically only on the points presented by the author -- not raise suspicions about their motives. Incidentally I think in this case the evidence points to the contrary: I think his motives are good. I actually happen to be concerned about capitalism in much a way Umair is, and I can promise you that I have good motives: I want my childhood friends (who I know are not doing well, they're living in poverty) to be doing well, in many respects I see them as victims of the current system. If I were to write a long piece of political commentary, criticizing the current system, I know that it would hurt me to be labeled as an "attention-seeker". I would, on the other hand, welcome any and all responses that go directly at my arguments.
      - davidw 13y ago
        > Did he basically find himself to the top, being a writer for HBR by just being purposely controversial? "Getting to the top" is not evidence of quality. There are plenty of examples of this. > I actually happen to be concerned about capitalism I think anyone who thinks about the world has doubts, worries, and wonders if things could be better. That's good, normal, and healthy. But to actually improve things, you have to go beyond the ranting, the "fat miserable drooling zombies", and so on. See, for instance, this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629890 That's real thinking and questioning. Umair, on the other hand, seems to rant a lot, in very broad terms, and propose little.

by selmnoo 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

In one of those tweets he seems to think that beards are problematic because they are some sort of Muslim culture appropriation (bizarrely ignoring the long history of beards in Europe...). In the other tweet he isn't talking about cultural appropriation or referring to any sort of Muslim connection, he seems to be taking offense to beards on white people because he thinks the beards emphasis their whiteness. The fundamental incompatibility between those comments leads me to believe that in neither case is he being sincere. He is just out to piss people off. He's 'trolling'. (Also, I suspect that most people who both know the "dumb fucks" quote, and think that it is significant, do not use Facebook. Facebook users probably mostly consist of people who have never heard the quote, have heard the quote but don't believe it, or don't think that the quote is relevant to Facebook today. Personally, I trust Zuck, so when he says I'd have to be a dumb fuck to use Facebook, I believe him...)

selmnoo 13y ago
Do you really think he is simply out to 'piss people off'? I'm genuinely interested in your answer. I personally don't think there are many people like that. I think the word 'troll' is overused, very, very few people out there are trolls. When I think 'troll' I think about people who join multi-player games only to cause havoc, people who join IRC channels to paste nazi ascii's. I think people who have unorthodox, or radical beliefs often mistakenly appear intentionally inflammatory, but they really aren't. So, I really don't think Umair is a troll in the traditional way. He's probably (at least in his mind) making a good faith effort to explain something, he's clearly misguided in his ways of elucidation of complicated ideas, but reducing him to a 'troll' just takes the direction of discussion down a confrontational and unproductive path. Yes, he is ignoring the long history of beards in Europe, instead focusing how beards are viewed today by specific subsets of people, and I think that's probably the source of his errors.
- davidw 13y ago
  I think he's out to get attention, and one way to do that is to be controversial, something which he seems to have honed to a fine art. I think he must be bright to have gotten so good at it, but it does not strike me as being all that productive, either.
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    With all due respect, I think that is just a strange conspiratorial type of thinking. Did he basically find himself to the top, being a writer for HBR by just being purposely controversial? Maybe it is a strategy, but it's clearly not the end goal. It is maybe just a means to an end, that is conceivable (although unlikely, in my view). I think the way to go in instances like these is just to engage specifically only on the points presented by the author -- not raise suspicions about their motives. Incidentally I think in this case the evidence points to the contrary: I think his motives are good. I actually happen to be concerned about capitalism in much a way Umair is, and I can promise you that I have good motives: I want my childhood friends (who I know are not doing well, they're living in poverty) to be doing well, in many respects I see them as victims of the current system. If I were to write a long piece of political commentary, criticizing the current system, I know that it would hurt me to be labeled as an "attention-seeker". I would, on the other hand, welcome any and all responses that go directly at my arguments.
    - davidw 13y ago
      > Did he basically find himself to the top, being a writer for HBR by just being purposely controversial? "Getting to the top" is not evidence of quality. There are plenty of examples of this. > I actually happen to be concerned about capitalism I think anyone who thinks about the world has doubts, worries, and wonders if things could be better. That's good, normal, and healthy. But to actually improve things, you have to go beyond the ranting, the "fat miserable drooling zombies", and so on. See, for instance, this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629890 That's real thinking and questioning. Umair, on the other hand, seems to rant a lot, in very broad terms, and propose little.