On 5 May 2011 21:12, Kurt H Maier <karmaflux_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not telling anyone what they're allowed to do. I'm telling them
> what they're doing is stupid shit, and that founding principle of
> suckless is basically sound.
Who's likely to behave more intelligently, a person who experiments
and finds out what works and doesn't work for themselves and
understands from experience why things work or don't work, or a person
who religiously follows the preaching of some overcompensating
jackass?
There's nothing wrong with being passionate about a certain viewpoint,
and there's nothing wrong with strongly criticizing people who are
persistently stupid. Stupidity however is not an opinion, it is a
behavior. What you're doing is attacking an opposing opinion with
fruitless vitriol. You're not constructively criticizing an opinion,
you're not providing any form of argument as to _why_ an opinion is
flawed, you're just throwing fallacious remarks with the apparent aim
of pressuring your opponent into submission.
There are people in this world, like Theo de Raadt, who through their
passion and frustration come across as assholes to the people at odds
with them, but still provide a constructive argument, and then there
are angry nerds who just come across as complete jackasses.
How you say something doesn't alter the substance of what you're
saying, and it is the substance that provides merit. There is no
substance in calling somebody stupid without explaining the why.
Received on Fri May 06 2011 - 03:04:38 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 06 2011 - 03:12:02 CEST