Comment by Dylan16807
Comment by Dylan16807 16 hours ago
I can phrase it a different way.
"Not everyone is you. Tons of experienced programmers and hackers don't know the name of the Erlang VM. Don't be an ass about it."
Comment by Dylan16807 16 hours ago
I can phrase it a different way.
"Not everyone is you. Tons of experienced programmers and hackers don't know the name of the Erlang VM. Don't be an ass about it."
Oh you made an edit.
You're looking at where I told someone not be rude, and you're interpreting that as a personal attack from me? Because I "want to be shitty"? No.
And the mention of community is not a pretense. I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing. (This is separate from how easy it is to google.)
Also, if you're calling out personal attacks, the way they used the word "disgraceful" is much more personal than anything I said.
> You're looking at where I told someone not be rude
That’s just it, you didn’t tell them not to be rude. You hid behind nebulous shunning of “gatekeeping”.
>I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing
Again, you didn’t actually do that though, did you? Instead you used the term colloquially meant to signal they are creating a “hostile” environment
> Also, if you're calling out personal attacks, the way they used the word "disgraceful"
I’m distinctly not calling out personal attacks, I literally just gave you a thumbs up for doing it instead of taking the virtue signaling finger wagging approach you previously used.
> Again, you didn’t actually do that though, did you? Instead you used the term colloquially meant to signal they are creating a “hostile” environment
> nebulous
I think you have an incorrect idea of what the word gatekeeping means.
It's not nebulous. It's saying they're doing a bad thing (being rude/synonym) by applying incorrect and artificial criteria about who is in a group (which I quoted).
Both versions of my comment had the same meaning. I wasn't hiding behind anything, just using different phrasing.
And no, my word choice was not to virtue signal. The word fit the situation so I used it.
No I understand clearly, it’s a weasel word and I dislike it. You use it to mask a personal attack (calling him an “ass”), shun behavior, and avoid the actual conflict of directly addressing what was said. Its annoying passive aggressive bullshit verbiage.
Calling out “gatekeeping” is virtue signaling at its very core.
"I’m sorry this is hacker news and hackers know that BEAM is the Erlang VM, no introduction or explanation needed." is being an ass to a lot of people.
Hey Dylan, you’re being an ass.
Their tone was disgraceful, let me explain by giving you an example of how posts should be made.
“Hey! This looks interesting, quick search on Google didn’t explain what the BEAM is as well as I would like, can someone let me know what this is about in layman’s terms?”
This is inviting people to talk about the topic at hand. It puts the responsibility of knowing something squarely on the person who wants that information and it’s generally pleasant.
How the parent decided to phrase his desire for being spoon fed information was in fact disgraceful.
So, question. Are you upset the blog author did go put in an extra sentence to say what BEAM is? Is that playing into the disgrace?
I disagree, but I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on much when it comes to the behavior of commentators
He wasn’t an ass about it. And the people who don’t know what BEAM is can easily google their way to more information than they’d ever be able to get from a comment here.
Edit: I will say that’s a better take. It’s at least blatant about it being the personal attack you intended it to be instead of passive aggressively couching it behind the pretense of caring about community. If you want to be shitty to people, just do it. I’d prefer honest assholes than weasely manipulators.