4 ms·

Why are your comments in this thread so rude?

by alayne 12y ago

DougWebb 12y ago
I'm rude? WalterBright is being rude and dismissive to everyone who must work at a job that consumes all of their time and energy just to survive, saying that they should just go ahead and quit and start their own business, because it's so easy and you can do it with nothing. His statements are ridiculous, completely ignoring the need for income or pre-existing savings to eat and live while trying to create a business that can be self-supporting.
loup-vaillant 12y ago
I didn't perceived any rudeness. A tint of anger, which by the way I sympathise with, hardly rudeness.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Interpreting the phrase 'nothing more' in such a ridiculous manner, to rant at, is quite rude.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    Context. WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one. He was not. He was just frustrated. --- By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to give you enough to eat, then starting a company suddenly becomes much less risky, if at all. Then speaking about needing "nothing more" than an affordable device stops being ridiculous.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      >one's gotta eat Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company. I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But even if it was appropriate, it's still rudeness. You can be right and rude.
      - loup-vaillant 12y ago
        I concede your second paragraph. --- I'd wager that starting a company in your spare time is very hard. Even harder if you have a family: you must make time for your day job, your family, and your new company. This can easily turn into a recipe for burnout. This approach is risky too. (I'm not mentioning family out of the blue. Most people wait to have some experience in their field before they start a company. That means sailing past 30, and often having children.) Now you can try and balance things out: instead of working full time or not at all, you can work part time. You make less money, but you have more time. That's probably the most sustainable approach. Still, you're split between two jobs, which may or may not drag you down. Now the problem is finding that part time job. There's also consulting, but that's its own kind of risky. WalterBright made it sound like sustaining yourself while you build the company isn't difficult nor risky. Like the only difficulty is building the company itself. It's not. Now if we had Basic Income, that would be a different story.
      - DougWebb 12y ago
        The problem with Walters' comments, and yours, and the reason I made the statements I made is the assumption that people have spare time. The discussion started with a statement that you don't have to work at a crappy job for someone you hate; you can just start a business and work for yourself. That was followed with a comment that most people can't do that because they don't have any capital (savings specifically) with which to start a business. Then Walter made a couple of comments saying that you can start a business with 'essentially nothing', and that there is little downside risk to doing so. What I was trying to point out is that this is not true for the majority of people "working a crappy job for someone they hate", because those people need to work that job to feed and house themselves. They're often working multiple jobs, in fact. Spare time is a type of capital when it comes to starting a business; if you don't have it (and most lower-income people don't) than you're trapped.

Why are your comments in this thread so rude?

by alayne 12y ago

Why are your comments in this thread so rude?

I'm rude? WalterBright is being rude and dismissive to everyone who must work at a job that consumes all of their time and energy just to survive, saying that they should just go ahead and quit and start their own business, because it's so easy and you can do it with nothing. His statements are ridiculous, completely ignoring the need for income or pre-existing savings to eat and live while trying to create a business that can be self-supporting.

loup-vaillant 12y ago

I didn't perceived any rudeness. A tint of anger, which by the way I sympathise with, hardly rudeness.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Interpreting the phrase 'nothing more' in such a ridiculous manner, to rant at, is quite rude.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Context. WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one. He was not. He was just frustrated. --- By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to give you enough to eat, then starting a company suddenly becomes much less risky, if at all. Then speaking about needing "nothing more" than an affordable device stops being ridiculous.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >one's gotta eat Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company. I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But even if it was appropriate, it's still rudeness. You can be right and rude.
    - loup-vaillant 12y ago
      I concede your second paragraph. --- I'd wager that starting a company in your spare time is very hard. Even harder if you have a family: you must make time for your day job, your family, and your new company. This can easily turn into a recipe for burnout. This approach is risky too. (I'm not mentioning family out of the blue. Most people wait to have some experience in their field before they start a company. That means sailing past 30, and often having children.) Now you can try and balance things out: instead of working full time or not at all, you can work part time. You make less money, but you have more time. That's probably the most sustainable approach. Still, you're split between two jobs, which may or may not drag you down. Now the problem is finding that part time job. There's also consulting, but that's its own kind of risky. WalterBright made it sound like sustaining yourself while you build the company isn't difficult nor risky. Like the only difficulty is building the company itself. It's not. Now if we had Basic Income, that would be a different story.
    - DougWebb 12y ago
      The problem with Walters' comments, and yours, and the reason I made the statements I made is the assumption that people have spare time. The discussion started with a statement that you don't have to work at a crappy job for someone you hate; you can just start a business and work for yourself. That was followed with a comment that most people can't do that because they don't have any capital (savings specifically) with which to start a business. Then Walter made a couple of comments saying that you can start a business with 'essentially nothing', and that there is little downside risk to doing so. What I was trying to point out is that this is not true for the majority of people "working a crappy job for someone they hate", because those people need to work that job to feed and house themselves. They're often working multiple jobs, in fact. Spare time is a type of capital when it comes to starting a business; if you don't have it (and most lower-income people don't) than you're trapped.