7 ms·

My 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 sim

by thras 17y ago

My 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 ago
I 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 ago
While 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 ago
  Well 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 ago
    Sometimes name-calling and meanness are warranted; most of the time, they're just cases of outraged people being outraged.
- thras 17y ago
  In 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.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    If you're really interested in conflict and drama above all else, I suggest you navigate to one of the many web discussion forums that are suited to that kind of thing--there are many of them and any one will do. As for this issue, it appears that when calling people cunts is the most interesting thing one can say, the issue probably falls far below any level of genuine intellectual curiosity and has no place here. Your citing of Plato and Martin Luther as examples only strengthens my point--Plato was a bullshit artist to the highest degree and Luther was above all things the instigator of some of the most dramatic religious wars in history. Neither of them had anything to say about reality, and those of us who do discuss reality would do best to ignore their examples.
    - thras 17y ago
      You go off and be intellectually curious in the kiddy pool then. I'll stick around the deep end, even if there might be sharks sometimes. And contrary to your pronouncements about its nature, Hacker News is not any sort of kiddy pool.
      - mcantor 17y ago
        I feel like you're using child similes to the exclusion of actually reading other people's posts. You keep saying that everyone else are "Kindergarten teachers" playing in the "kiddy pool," but I believe that real men--real adults--are capable of disagreeing with each other without ascribing their differences to a deep inner flaw in the other man's personality. You have provided no evidence or argument to the contrary.

by thras 17y ago

mcantor 17y ago

I 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 ago

While 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 ago
Well 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 ago
  Sometimes name-calling and meanness are warranted; most of the time, they're just cases of outraged people being outraged.
thras 17y ago
In 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.
- philwelch 17y ago
  If you're really interested in conflict and drama above all else, I suggest you navigate to one of the many web discussion forums that are suited to that kind of thing--there are many of them and any one will do. As for this issue, it appears that when calling people cunts is the most interesting thing one can say, the issue probably falls far below any level of genuine intellectual curiosity and has no place here. Your citing of Plato and Martin Luther as examples only strengthens my point--Plato was a bullshit artist to the highest degree and Luther was above all things the instigator of some of the most dramatic religious wars in history. Neither of them had anything to say about reality, and those of us who do discuss reality would do best to ignore their examples.
  - thras 17y ago
    You go off and be intellectually curious in the kiddy pool then. I'll stick around the deep end, even if there might be sharks sometimes. And contrary to your pronouncements about its nature, Hacker News is not any sort of kiddy pool.
    - mcantor 17y ago
      I feel like you're using child similes to the exclusion of actually reading other people's posts. You keep saying that everyone else are "Kindergarten teachers" playing in the "kiddy pool," but I believe that real men--real adults--are capable of disagreeing with each other without ascribing their differences to a deep inner flaw in the other man's personality. You have provided no evidence or argument to the contrary.