While I understand your exasperation, the first 3 of the 5 statements you listed were directed at getting debt to support or retract some unjustified and repugnant accusations about my purported beliefs. I make no apologies for vigorously and forcefully demanding that my accusers defend their accusations or retract them. In this case, debt has done neither.
The fourth statement was a reaction to a particularly egregious instance of an unsupported statement. I like to think of it as 'robust humor,' but reasonable people could disagree.
The final instance, "It may help you to understand that..." was genuinely polite. debt had gone off the rails at this point and clearly does not understand even the definition of ressentiment about which he is commenting. I humbly suggest that this one doesn't even belong on your list.
I forget the article, but there was a link on HN that covered, among other things, the differences between a 'community' and a 'society' online, and how these paralleled their irl counterparts. HN, if it can be called anything at all, must be called a 'society' rather than a 'community', if only because of its size. We simply cannot form communal ties with the sheer number of people on HN. And in a civil 'society', a little meanness is permitted, even encouraged, when responding to an attack by another member of the society.
debt has not played, and still is not playing, by the rules. Either his reading comprehension is so poor or his disregard for accuracy so complete that he is not fit for civil discussion on this site. This would not matter at all if he would at least refrain from making unsupported statements about others' beliefs and intentions. Just look at my original post and try to find justification for his aspersions, and then ask yourself what HN would be like if debt and his ilk ran amok unchecked. Justice and/or basic dignity demand that we give to him as we get from him until he either comes around or buggers off.
I think you can see that there's a difference between this kind of 'meanness' and the abject trolling and plain incivility present on other sites. This 'meanness' has a preservative and defensive function, I would argue, and should not be shied away from. To shy away, I think, would be to give in to an excessive squeamishness and would surrender the debate to persons, like debt, who are unfit to inherit this site.
I fail to see any other course in circumstances like these, but I am open to reasoned correction on this matter. And, if pg or the other demigods of HN want to chime in on the matter, their opinions would be welcome, even definitive, to some extent. Until then, when I am confronted with the kind of unreasoning and brutishly unfounded claims evidenced by debt, I will come out, metaphorical guns a-blazin', at my discretion.
Respectfully,
mkn
EDIT: It is bitterly ironic that a post which contains the phrase 'I am open to reasoned correction' should be downmodded into negative territory, instead of reasonably replied to. If there is a clearer indication of the ineffectiveness of this turn-the-other-cheek pussification of debate on HN, I cannot imagine it. We will get the forum we deserve, I guess.
Honestly? I don't mind your "meanness" as others see it. I enjoy it. You want answers. Good, I'd love to give them to you. However, I didn't want this to go into personal attacks. I figured if I didn't respond to it, or, at least, if I responded in the way I did already it would come off as light-hearted and die away. I really did not mean for what I said to come off as a personal attack. I'll explain my accusation anyway.
You said this: This is Nietasche's ressentiment, the origin of moral feeling. Observe the hatred he has for the successful and the contented. They have won at the game of life, in that they fit in, are laughing, are enjoying themselves, yet the author feels that there must be something wrong with them. They must deserve his scorn because he has not achieved the ease and confidence that they show. It must be a chimera. Meditation sets the author apart. He has stamina. He has determination. He has 'grit', and for this he is despised by the masses. Bullshit.
The author of the article DOES NOT say that he hates these people, that these people are miserable, that these people have won at anything. Nowhere does he say they fit in, or that it must be chimera. Nor does he directly compare himself to these lesser-thans. No. YOU have said this. YOU show us your observation. The author was saying perhaps, they want more. Not that they are winners, but that they want more. You immediately jump to the conclusion that he holds "ressentiment" or whatever the fuck you call it. When all he was saying is that perhaps, they aren't as happy as they seem. Nothing more, nothing less. They didn't WIN or LOSE at life, rather, a different life is waiting for them if they themselves wait.
It's my opinion that the only way a person can hold the point of view you hold is if they, at some point in their lives, have themselves seen others in a similar way.
On a basic level, the author is just suggesting people take a moment and reflect on themselves and their own lives.
I'm really not trying to make this a personal attack on you, but, you seem like a reasonable person and there is some subtle bullshit inherent in your original post which got past your own built-in bs detectors somehow.
Comments
Put up or shut up.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
...or retract your insipid allegation.
I want whatever you're smoking.
It may help you to understand that...
Good grief. Can we keep this kind of meanness out of HN comment threads or do I need to find another community?
While I understand your exasperation, the first 3 of the 5 statements you listed were directed at getting debt to support or retract some unjustified and repugnant accusations about my purported beliefs. I make no apologies for vigorously and forcefully demanding that my accusers defend their accusations or retract them. In this case, debt has done neither.
The fourth statement was a reaction to a particularly egregious instance of an unsupported statement. I like to think of it as 'robust humor,' but reasonable people could disagree.
The final instance, "It may help you to understand that..." was genuinely polite. debt had gone off the rails at this point and clearly does not understand even the definition of ressentiment about which he is commenting. I humbly suggest that this one doesn't even belong on your list.
I forget the article, but there was a link on HN that covered, among other things, the differences between a 'community' and a 'society' online, and how these paralleled their irl counterparts. HN, if it can be called anything at all, must be called a 'society' rather than a 'community', if only because of its size. We simply cannot form communal ties with the sheer number of people on HN. And in a civil 'society', a little meanness is permitted, even encouraged, when responding to an attack by another member of the society.
debt has not played, and still is not playing, by the rules. Either his reading comprehension is so poor or his disregard for accuracy so complete that he is not fit for civil discussion on this site. This would not matter at all if he would at least refrain from making unsupported statements about others' beliefs and intentions. Just look at my original post and try to find justification for his aspersions, and then ask yourself what HN would be like if debt and his ilk ran amok unchecked. Justice and/or basic dignity demand that we give to him as we get from him until he either comes around or buggers off.
I think you can see that there's a difference between this kind of 'meanness' and the abject trolling and plain incivility present on other sites. This 'meanness' has a preservative and defensive function, I would argue, and should not be shied away from. To shy away, I think, would be to give in to an excessive squeamishness and would surrender the debate to persons, like debt, who are unfit to inherit this site.
I fail to see any other course in circumstances like these, but I am open to reasoned correction on this matter. And, if pg or the other demigods of HN want to chime in on the matter, their opinions would be welcome, even definitive, to some extent. Until then, when I am confronted with the kind of unreasoning and brutishly unfounded claims evidenced by debt, I will come out, metaphorical guns a-blazin', at my discretion.
Respectfully, mkn
EDIT: It is bitterly ironic that a post which contains the phrase 'I am open to reasoned correction' should be downmodded into negative territory, instead of reasonably replied to. If there is a clearer indication of the ineffectiveness of this turn-the-other-cheek pussification of debate on HN, I cannot imagine it. We will get the forum we deserve, I guess.
Honestly? I don't mind your "meanness" as others see it. I enjoy it. You want answers. Good, I'd love to give them to you. However, I didn't want this to go into personal attacks. I figured if I didn't respond to it, or, at least, if I responded in the way I did already it would come off as light-hearted and die away. I really did not mean for what I said to come off as a personal attack. I'll explain my accusation anyway.
You said this: This is Nietasche's ressentiment, the origin of moral feeling. Observe the hatred he has for the successful and the contented. They have won at the game of life, in that they fit in, are laughing, are enjoying themselves, yet the author feels that there must be something wrong with them. They must deserve his scorn because he has not achieved the ease and confidence that they show. It must be a chimera. Meditation sets the author apart. He has stamina. He has determination. He has 'grit', and for this he is despised by the masses. Bullshit.
The author of the article DOES NOT say that he hates these people, that these people are miserable, that these people have won at anything. Nowhere does he say they fit in, or that it must be chimera. Nor does he directly compare himself to these lesser-thans. No. YOU have said this. YOU show us your observation. The author was saying perhaps, they want more. Not that they are winners, but that they want more. You immediately jump to the conclusion that he holds "ressentiment" or whatever the fuck you call it. When all he was saying is that perhaps, they aren't as happy as they seem. Nothing more, nothing less. They didn't WIN or LOSE at life, rather, a different life is waiting for them if they themselves wait.
It's my opinion that the only way a person can hold the point of view you hold is if they, at some point in their lives, have themselves seen others in a similar way.
On a basic level, the author is just suggesting people take a moment and reflect on themselves and their own lives.
I'm really not trying to make this a personal attack on you, but, you seem like a reasonable person and there is some subtle bullshit inherent in your original post which got past your own built-in bs detectors somehow.