4 ms·

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

by 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.
jlgreco 13y ago
Maybe "piss people off" is a bit strong, but it really seems like he is trying first and foremost to "get a rise out of people". I don't think he simultaneously thinks that white people with beards are trying to "emphasis their whiteness" and a thinks that white people with beards are trying to appropriate/mock Muslim culture. Those two assertions, while fine (if not a little loony) on their own, are contradictory and expressing both of them tips his hand. He doesn't believe either; he is being intentionally inflammatory. Had I not read both of those comments, I would have been strongly annoyed (indeed, I necessarily read one before the other, and was strongly annoyed until I read the other). Having read both comments, I can only be bemused. I'm onto his game now, so I'm not going to let him get to me. This is my understanding of what the word "troll" traditionally meant. People on IRC who get people upset by making absurd flamebait statements and pretending to defend them ("Lunix is for communists and virgins", being a prototypical troll in my book).

by selmnoo 13y ago

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.

jlgreco 13y ago

Maybe "piss people off" is a bit strong, but it really seems like he is trying first and foremost to "get a rise out of people". I don't think he simultaneously thinks that white people with beards are trying to "emphasis their whiteness" and a thinks that white people with beards are trying to appropriate/mock Muslim culture. Those two assertions, while fine (if not a little loony) on their own, are contradictory and expressing both of them tips his hand. He doesn't believe either; he is being intentionally inflammatory. Had I not read both of those comments, I would have been strongly annoyed (indeed, I necessarily read one before the other, and was strongly annoyed until I read the other). Having read both comments, I can only be bemused. I'm onto his game now, so I'm not going to let him get to me. This is my understanding of what the word "troll" traditionally meant. People on IRC who get people upset by making absurd flamebait statements and pretending to defend them ("Lunix is for communists and virgins", being a prototypical troll in my book).