On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:33:33AM +0100, Rui Carmo wrote:
>
> Regular aggressive is taking things outside the realm of civilised discourse,
> which is easy to do behind a keyboard, since being irate at abstract things
> seems to be a slippery slope when removed from regular human contact.
Nah, I do it in person too. But nice try!
> However, it is not really acceptable, even with an attempt at (biased) logic
> behind it.
Disagree.
> And the problem with doing that as a learning experience or for the purpose
> of having better tooling is exactly… what?
None. But I don't see any learning, and I don't see any better tooling,
and that's my point. This is just noise.
> You meant “grace” (pronounced “grasse”), not “greasy”, as in “foie de gras”.
> I can understand that mastery of foreign languages might slip away under the
> kind of blood pressure involved in your original reply.
You read my email, and you concluded that I meant to describe grace? If
I can borrow your favorite word, that conclusion is fascinating.
> Ignorance takes many forms, such as lack of empathy (which can translate in
> some contexts to “emotional ignorance”). The attempt at drawing parallels
> with Kickstarter (and the implicit bias against experimentation and focusing
> only on failures) is amusing, but telling.
Lack of empathy can be just as easily a deliberate decision. Why do you
tacitly discount this possibility?
> This isn’t a web forum. It is a mailing-list, and as such (as I would like to
> think) one of the last bastions of measured, rational discourse on today’s
> Internet (ok, there was ample precedent for flame wars in FidoNet, and we can
> gloss over the Usenet massacres, but I think my point has a chance of getting
> across). You are not helping to set a positive tone.
I do not want to set a positive tone. I want the programming fanfiction
to go away. And I know this isn't a web forum. That's why I
highlighted the weblike nature of the posting in question: to indicate
it is out of place on a mailing list. Much like your pearl-clutching
about civility.
> And yet, if no-one tries, nobody will ever deliver on it.
And yet, if this person tries, nobody will still have delivered on it.
That was kind of the thesis of my message, remember?
> History is filled with people who were laughed at and changed (even if in
> small ways) the world we live in. Being able to remember that is what
> separates civilised cultures from biased, negative cultures that prey on (and
> anticipate) failure for the sake of entertainment. Ancient Rome comes to mind
> here.
Entertainment? I'm trying to help this person fail in isolation, far
from prying eyes! I don't want to watch this train wreck, or hear about
it at all. That's my whole point! Let the dreams die with some
dignity.
> I parsed that as the Dept. of Agriculture until I realised there were no
> animal husbandry puns to fit this situation. Regardless, I fully expected a
> red “let’s make Plan9 great” again baseball cap to emerge from this argument.
> Not being a political partisan, I’m not going to go there, and point out that
> ad hominem is always a way to introduce fallacy when genuine arguments don’t
> hold water (or alcohol).
I don't know how to be clearer: my low opinion of this person is
precisely the 'argument' I am presenting. It can't be a fallacy if it's
a premise. The conclusion ("this will not happen") follows quite
naturally from the major premise ("idiots never actually execute their
plans") and the minor premise ("this guy is an idiot"). Seems
straightforward, despite your awkard and irrelevant political ramblings.
> You might. Failure to recognise the odds that you are says a lot.
I'm not going to apologize for confidence. It comes of a moderate
amount of experience, hearing this same noise on a thousand
communications media, all from people who claim to be performing a
'learning exercise' or some such. Some have delivered. This person
does not demonstrate the characteristics of that capability.
> Loved this bout of sparring. Reminds me of when I believed technology alone
> could save the world, until I figured out that people (and how you relate to
> them) is the whole point of doing most of what actually matters.
I can only imagine the wonderful feeling that must have accompanied a
belief that anything can save the world, but declining to relate to
unproductive noisemakers is a policy that has consistently served me
very well.
Every once in a while, I am surprised. When that happens, I get better
tools, and a few people get to savor the knowledge that I was wrong
about something. It's a fair trade.
khm
