3 ms·

Every time you go out in public or post something online, you're going to offend someone, somewhere. You'll wear the wrong clothes, have the wrong haircut, have

Every time you go out in public or post something online, you're going to offend someone, somewhere. You'll wear the wrong clothes, have the wrong haircut, have a beard or not have a beard, have different beliefs, eat the wrong food or have the wrong opinions. So don't sweat it when people get offended. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you and you'll have no regrets, but you'll still offend people. Just accept it and move on. Also, I did not think your stunt unprofessional, I thought it was cute and funny. That band offends me ;)

rmc 13y ago
Of course, sometimes people actually are arseholes.
- ef47d35620c1 13y ago
  There are those who seek to intentionally offend others. Those people are indeed arseholes.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    That's what the author did by banning Nickelback.
    - Crito 13y ago
      I doubt they were thinking about Nickelback fans when they made that option. They were almost certainly thinking about fans of the played out Nickelback joke. That may seem like nitpicking, but the distinction is very important.
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        Question: why not Justin Bieber? Why Nickelback? Why not Michael Jackson? Why not Disney songs?
        Crito 13y ago
        Because the meme is about Nickelback. Why isn't it pet hamsters like cheeseburgers? Why isn't it puppies that like cheeseburgers? Why isn't it parrots that like cheeseburger? The meme is that cats like cheeseburgers. Does it make sense? Is it something even worth bothering to analyze?
        yeukhon 13y ago
        Sorry, there are memes for other artists too. Why Nickleback meme? If it isn't worth analye, why are we posting on HN and why are we discussing it? Because it is worth analyzing. Because people, we, all do put in subjective thoughts when we make stuff. And it is worth asking whether that's a good practice or not, whether it is following code of ethics of not. It is part of ethics.
        Crito 13y ago
        If they'd picked on Justin Bieber, then we would probably be asking why they didn't pick on Nickelback instead. Why did they pick anybody to pick on in the first place? That's easy: publicity. It got people talking about their product. Why do people in general pick on Justin Bieber or Nickelback? I don't really know. If I had to guess, I'd say that people dislike successful celebrities or musicians who they think have undeserved praise or success. That "undeserved" is of course highly subjective. Most people who dislike Justin Bieber are likely not in his target audience. Since his target audience is fairly narrow, you have a reasonably large pool of people to get onto your "Justin Bieber memes train". It probably works the other way around too. Mention "Rush" and "rock and roll hall of fame" in the same comment on Reddit and see what happens. On the other hand, many of the complaints leveled at Rush and Nickelback by critics are the same. Both have been called formulaic and repetitive (I don't agree with that, but I have heard it). So what is the difference between Nickelback, who get internet hate, and Rush, who get internet praise? I don't know. The obvious answer might be that Geddy Lee and Neil Peart in particular are both widely recognized as being extremely technically talented musicians, giving Rush something that other formulaic bands cannot fall back on... but I don't think that is a satisfactory explanation. This article isn't really on HN because people want to discuss the merits of an internet meme about Nickelback. The origin/merit of the meme is rather incidental.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Y'know, I don't like the word "offend" or "offence". It puts the blame on the victim for "getting offended", it means the perpatrator didn't do anything wrong, it means the victim should just "grow a thicker skin". I prefer "being an arsehole". Rather person A saying something that "caused offence", person A acted like an arsehole.
    - derleth 13y ago
      In a crazy way, this reminds me of a policy at a grade school I went to: Fight-free schools, where "It takes two to fight" was the mantra. Anyone caught fighting was in trouble; it didn't matter why, even if it was self-defense. "It takes two to fight" means that if anyone tried to fight you, you had to go to a teacher and report them. That was the only sanctioned remedy. It worked about as well as you'd imagine. I wonder what would happen if we applied the same logic to adult arguments and crimes.
    - jpttsn 13y ago
      You could use offensive, as is commonly done. Some ban offensive speech etc. I incidentally disagree with you completely. The blame is rightly on the victim. What offends is usually personal, vague and often illogical. It's not reasonable to hold anyone responsible for doing perceived offensive things (provided they don't actually do anything otherwise illegal; I shouldn't have to point this out but I'll hedge).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rmc 13y ago

Of course, sometimes people actually are arseholes.

ef47d35620c1 13y ago
There are those who seek to intentionally offend others. Those people are indeed arseholes.
- jebblue 13y ago
  That's what the author did by banning Nickelback.
  - Crito 13y ago
    I doubt they were thinking about Nickelback fans when they made that option. They were almost certainly thinking about fans of the played out Nickelback joke. That may seem like nitpicking, but the distinction is very important.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Question: why not Justin Bieber? Why Nickelback? Why not Michael Jackson? Why not Disney songs?
      - Crito 13y ago
        Because the meme is about Nickelback. Why isn't it pet hamsters like cheeseburgers? Why isn't it puppies that like cheeseburgers? Why isn't it parrots that like cheeseburger? The meme is that cats like cheeseburgers. Does it make sense? Is it something even worth bothering to analyze?
        yeukhon 13y ago
        Sorry, there are memes for other artists too. Why Nickleback meme? If it isn't worth analye, why are we posting on HN and why are we discussing it? Because it is worth analyzing. Because people, we, all do put in subjective thoughts when we make stuff. And it is worth asking whether that's a good practice or not, whether it is following code of ethics of not. It is part of ethics.
        Crito 13y ago
        If they'd picked on Justin Bieber, then we would probably be asking why they didn't pick on Nickelback instead. Why did they pick anybody to pick on in the first place? That's easy: publicity. It got people talking about their product. Why do people in general pick on Justin Bieber or Nickelback? I don't really know. If I had to guess, I'd say that people dislike successful celebrities or musicians who they think have undeserved praise or success. That "undeserved" is of course highly subjective. Most people who dislike Justin Bieber are likely not in his target audience. Since his target audience is fairly narrow, you have a reasonably large pool of people to get onto your "Justin Bieber memes train". It probably works the other way around too. Mention "Rush" and "rock and roll hall of fame" in the same comment on Reddit and see what happens. On the other hand, many of the complaints leveled at Rush and Nickelback by critics are the same. Both have been called formulaic and repetitive (I don't agree with that, but I have heard it). So what is the difference between Nickelback, who get internet hate, and Rush, who get internet praise? I don't know. The obvious answer might be that Geddy Lee and Neil Peart in particular are both widely recognized as being extremely technically talented musicians, giving Rush something that other formulaic bands cannot fall back on... but I don't think that is a satisfactory explanation. This article isn't really on HN because people want to discuss the merits of an internet meme about Nickelback. The origin/merit of the meme is rather incidental.
- rmc 13y ago
  Y'know, I don't like the word "offend" or "offence". It puts the blame on the victim for "getting offended", it means the perpatrator didn't do anything wrong, it means the victim should just "grow a thicker skin". I prefer "being an arsehole". Rather person A saying something that "caused offence", person A acted like an arsehole.
  - derleth 13y ago
    In a crazy way, this reminds me of a policy at a grade school I went to: Fight-free schools, where "It takes two to fight" was the mantra. Anyone caught fighting was in trouble; it didn't matter why, even if it was self-defense. "It takes two to fight" means that if anyone tried to fight you, you had to go to a teacher and report them. That was the only sanctioned remedy. It worked about as well as you'd imagine. I wonder what would happen if we applied the same logic to adult arguments and crimes.
  - jpttsn 13y ago
    You could use offensive, as is commonly done. Some ban offensive speech etc. I incidentally disagree with you completely. The blame is rightly on the victim. What offends is usually personal, vague and often illogical. It's not reasonable to hold anyone responsible for doing perceived offensive things (provided they don't actually do anything otherwise illegal; I shouldn't have to point this out but I'll hedge).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]