5 ms·
Okay, I have literally never badmouthed an author of an article posted on this site before, but this guy is really just a major league asshole. I can't believe
by mcantor 17y ago
Okay, I have literally never badmouthed an author of an article posted on this site before, but this guy is really just a major league asshole. I can't believe he characterized the Slate writer as propagating "cuntacular" tripe, when he could have just provided a few paragraphs of calm, rational explanation.
When I clicked the link to the Slate article, I was prepared to enter Delta Rage. "Wow," I thought, "Old John Welch here is really pissed off. This Farhad Manjoo guy must be his own class of ignorant and self-centered. I can't wait to read what must be a classic flame-bait article!" But no. Turns out, the Slate writer is just another frustrated office worker who--just like he mentioned--resents IT experts because he perceives their rules as arbitrary. Why does he have a silly misconception like that? Because the IT staff, like friendly Bynkii Blogger here, are too saturnine and sarcastic to actually explain things to a mere mortal.
Impressive, really. FTA: "Big old stupid IT knows nothing about your job." Never has a lack of empathy been so startlingly revealed by someone sardonically pointing it out in an attempt to say otherwise.
EDIT: You know, I feel so strongly that this author failed to express himself constructively that I want to provide an alternate version of his post. Call it a "TA;DR" (Too Asinine; Didn't Read) version:
"A lot of the harsh decisions that office workers assume to come from IT are actually made up in management, and are merely implemented by IT, who are just as upset about them. Trust me: We feel your pain. In terms of the other complaints, the IT staff would love to allow people to use any application they wanted, but every new program added to the mix creates another potential point of failure, which will inevitably end up costing the IT staff time, and thus cost the company money. Keeping a company's technological ecosystem balanced is very hard work, so IT departments are necessarily reluctant to change or expand standards."
- thras 17y agoMy interest flailed around and died when I tried to read your last paragraph, the 'sanitized' version that you think should have been written. Your post is simply the Kindergarten Teacher's clarion call for people on the internet to "be nice to each other!" Sorry, dude. That's not how it works. It's not even how it worked pre-internet. Read Martin Luther. Or the good bits of Plato. Effective rhetoric is a twisting knife in your victim's soul. I made it all the way through the article because of the raw vitriol and clear prose. Not something I usually do with something that long.
- mcantor 17y agoI do not conflate "being nice" with "respect." I'm absolutely fine with someone swearing and hurling any quantity of invectives, as long as they are LISTENING before they speak. This guy completely missed the point of Mr. Manjoo's article. Mr. Manjoo himself missed the point of his own article, which was not "IT are such jerks," but in fact, "IT does not adequately explain their decisions, and this feeling of powerlessness, and being ignored, is making me unhappy."
- philwelch 17y agoWhile meanness and name-calling make for some fun drama, it really gets in the way of communication. Or, to rephrase this comment in a more interesting way for you: while meanness and name-calling make for some fun drama, it really gets in the way of communication, you stupid prick.
- tdavis 17y agoWell of course it fails to work when the reply's tone isn't warranted. In this case, the article was bemoaning IT and blaming all the problems of The Working Man on that department, which has been a theme probably since IT became a department. After dealing with these sorts of uninformed gits for 20 years, I would expect a rebuttal to have a little feeling to it, and it would have been rather boring, without it. Sometimes complaining about name-calling and meanness are warranted; most of the time, they're just cases of outraged people being outraged. Which is exactly what the thread OP came off as. I happen to really like visceral, biting rants against ignorance (so long as they're couched in logical arguments).
- philwelch 17y agoSometimes name-calling and meanness are warranted; most of the time, they're just cases of outraged people being outraged.
- thras 17y agoIn point of fact, it didn't. I read all the way through the original article. I gave up on Mr. pseudo-Nice Guy. I ignored the guy who didn't call me a prick. Therefore, in contradiction of your argument, meanness and name-calling enabled communication with me. And therefore your premise blows its own brains out in disgust at its own self-contradiction. Now, it helps when it's actually well done in contrast to your last line about me being "a prick" -- and I am, by the way. Always remember to make that beautied muse Creativity your ho when insulting a man.
- maukdaddy 17y agoI'm going to start using "TA;DR". Brilliant. Also, I hope this guy doesn't need to look for a job any time soon. I'd never hire him after reading that kind of rant online.
- philwelch 17y agoEspecially not for a job where he actually had to support users.
- mcantor 17y agoThe sad thing is, I mostly agree with what he's trying to say: IT guys aren't assholes, they're just doing their best to keep the whole damn network infrastructure of their workplace from tumbling down around them. He's clearly chosen to identify himself with the "fuck everyone who disagrees with me, I'm a badass sonuvabitch who doesn't care what they think" persona, but it's just a poor platform for communication. It works for satirists like Maddox (thebestpageintheuniverse.com), but you need to be able to respectfully disagree with people on the job, you know? Honestly, he actually seems like a pretty cool guy. I think he's just a little bit Zed Shaw.