Please Die2: Raising Creative Jerks 507
Part Two
This issue of a hostile communications style, an assaultive online environment, transcends any particularly website or Net sub-culture, having its roots in the earliest days of the Net. Hostility tends to go hand-in-hand with online media - a fact of life, like noise near an airport. There's always been an angry streak in the subculture of geeks, hackers, nerds, teenagers and academics who patched together computers and computer networks and built the first bulletin boards, mailing lists and conferencing systems.
In fact, hostility is closely tied to computing communications, the Net and the Web, to many high-tech industries. There's not a great deal of mystery about the source: it's generated largely by young men, the branch of the species that has the highest testosterone levels.
Older people abandon websites like this with almost visceral disgust: "I'm a retired engineer," Jim wrote me several weeks ago, "and I would never post a message on your website. It's complicated and it's just too hostile. I don't have an appetite for that."
Perhaps more than any other single group, women report endemic problems posting on sites like this (check the Natalie Portman postings on almost any Thread), an extension of the trouble some have encountered working in computing and technology companies.
For the second time in four months, Juno Online Services is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former employee, a Harvard-educated software engineer who claims she was pressured to date a company executive, was paid less than her male colleagues, and worked in an environment where sexism and locker-room behavior were rampant.
In recent years, countless numbers of women have complained about the techno-workplace and the probably-related problems they face participating in sites like this one.
While the Net and the Web were conceived and constructed by men -- who dominated the technical, defense, academic and engineering professions of the 1950's and 1960's -- that's starting to change. Industry surveys show that as many women as men are buying computers now, and women are working in almost every element of the computing industry. But it's unusual to see one posting on sites like this - a surprising reality given that half of the people online are now female. Men start most topics, dominate most conversations.
And identity - perhaps the single most elemental ingredient of community - is almost eroded when anonymous posters dominate all discussions. Women seeking community often turn to all-female mailing lists, conferences and websites, a sad evolution of a medium with so much promise to be free and open. At its geeky core, the Net still feels like a clubhouse - male, white, narrow.
E-mail is convenient, visceral and democratic, but it, along with anonymous public postings, can breed hostility and raise unresolved questions. There's little tradition of taking responsibility for one's words, which can be instantly hurled all over the world in seconds.
Yet this idea of taking responsibility, of being held accountable for what one says, is also closely linked to the quality and value of communication.
The nature of e-mail and posts has evolved tremendously in the past decade, according to scholars studying e-communities. "When e-mail took root in organizations in the late l970's and early 1980's two things occurred regularly and predictably," writes Mark Stefik of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in "Internet Dreams," published in 1996.
"One was that e-mail users spontaneously organized their own discussion groups on topics of interest: the second was a kind of organizational flattening as people developed e-mail cross-links that did not necessarily follow hierarchical lines of management."
The trend in e-mail, writes Stefik, has been towards greater connectivity, and e-mail has soared past company, university, and other boundaries. Now, says Stefik, the original rationale for e-mail has disappeared, and people largely use it for social purposes, not functionality.
And sadly, public posting areas haven't evolved much at all, apart from the fact that most websites forbid anonymity and restrict the nature of personal messages.
The evolution of e-mail and the growth of the Web has brought distinctive e-communities into increasing contact with outsiders. "From the perspective of veterans," writes Stefik, "hordes of new users have invaded their discussions over the past few years, using bad etiquette and asking dumb questions. The social problem is analogous to the problem of assimilation when natural disasters or wars lead to mass movements of people to new lands. When the rate of immigration exceeds a certain amount, the resulting chaos and need for adjustment in the host country can evoke resentment and backlash from the resident population."
In my own experience, Stefik's observations ring especially true. As a non-geek who usually (for a variety of work reasons) writes in Microsoft Word, some members of this community have been trying to drive me off the site ever since I arrived. Often, their attacks have little to do with what I think or write, mostly to do with the fact that I'm different, an outsider, a non-programmer who made different technology choices.
I've gotten plenty of praise and support too, but my own experience underscores the moral challenge facing people who run websites like this: people who attack others are celebrated. Only certain groups are really free; everybody else has the appearance of freedom but if their views diverge from the norm they are assaulted, harassed, driven off.
It's an inverted kind of tyranny in which the most hostile people are truly the freest. Most people who aren't paid columnists will go elsewhere.
As an e-community grows, so does the small group of people likely to send or post hostile or bizarre messages. The flamers are never required to take responsibility for any of the things they say, nor are there any consequences. They aren't embarrassed to be vicious or inaccurate, since they don't ever meet the people reading their messages. One might even argue they're rewarded for shutting down free speech.
Behavioral psychologists like Robert Coles and James Wilson describe the evolution of human behavior and conscience this way: the young are praised for good behavior, punished for bad. In this way, through a complex system of cues, rewards and signals, they learn to differentiate acceptable from unacceptable behavior. If you insult a kid down the block, he belts you. If you slug your sister, you get sent to your room. If you taunt your teacher, you stay after school.
But online, this process of learning how to behave is oddly inverted. You might be rewarded for being creative and technologically-skilled, but not for being civil or tolerant. Perhaps more significantly, you never suffer for being hostile. Frequently -- through your ability to post public messages, to attack others and disrupt conversations --- you are actually rewarded.
In the real world, people learn to hold or moderate speech. If you're smart, you don't yell at the cop who's pulled you over, and you resist the urge to tell your boss he's a jerk. Online, there is no moderating impulse. Some websites are actually installing "reply delay" software to force posters to mull their words for a minute or two.
In virtual communities, especially those that guarantee anonymity, there aren't even such mild social pressures as disapproving glances or cold stares. The targets can't simply walk away, although that's increasingly the goal of some moderated systems. Even though electronic communities have demonstrated many of the same traits as real-world communities, older, veteran or more experienced members have no tradition of coaching or mentoring their aberrant peers. The result is a curious new kind of sub-culture in which a small group can experience unbounded freedom and creativity, yet never have to develop empathetic or communal social skills. The results are on display every day: the Net is breeding some of the brightest jerks on the planet.
The result is that flaming and hostile environments become a political as well as technological question, especially for those who are assaulted or excluded. Hard-core geeks embrace as a political ideology the idea that all communications should be free. Yet hostility and cultural bigotry to outsiders and newcomers usually only ends when it becomes a consensus political issue - in this case, when website leaders, lurkers, veterans and other people with influence move to challenge hostility, and to curb non-productive and personal verbal abuse.
As e-communities evolve, so do their politics. Although it makes perfect sense that websites will find ways to preserve even the most raucous freedom, the preservation of hostile environments make no sense at all - technologically, politically or commercially.
Tomorrow: In hostile environments, how to talk about technology?
Mirror (Score:5)
So I tend to view the internet as not a solution or a problem, but like one of those fun house mirrors. It still shows you what was there all along, but sometimes in a really warped and twisted fashion. You never know until you look.
Same old Same old... (Score:3)
I remember back in 1988 with BBS's when it was pure geek culture the same thing was going on then. Flame wars burnned like wildfires around message boards over nothing -- no topical arguments, just pure "You suck" issues.
Nothing has changed for better or worse. The way I look at it, flames can be pretty funny if you take a step back and try not to get involved, and the less people that get involved, the less meaningless messages will fill up disscusion boards because flaming is realy just about the need for attention.. *sigh*
I remember one guy on this BBS actualy got a brick through his window as the result of flaming another guy on a board...But remaining annoymous was a little more difficult back then.
Jerks in cyberspace... (Score:2)
Although the rules of the online "society" are still in their infancy; I have no doubt that people who learn to get along with others in a constructive way will do better online than those who don't. Just like real life.
Well, I wouldn't go that far... (Score:2)
How very true (and sad) (Score:2)
Whenever I go on abUsenet to ask a technical question, I pretty much expect to be confronted, if I get an answer at all, with off-point jabs. That is, if I ask a question that reveals that I'm, yes, using (alert alert!) *Windows* for anything at all, then a vocal subset of Linux geeks won't answer my Linux questions, but will instead excoriate me for not going 100% Windows-free. Dumb stuff like that.
It's not a new phenomenon. I used to read one of the "net.religion" newsgroups about 15 years ago, and the attacks between people who disagreed on theological issues were vicious. They're pretty much the same now, though I gave up wading through the chaff looking for grains of wheat about a decade ago. I think that is the type of "old days" on line discussion that set the tone, too often, for many of today's online communities.
I do however subscribe to some mailing lists where users get rather hostile to those who breach norms of civility, and where a list owner can if necessary dump a jerk off the list. That's a more pleasant environment. And I think web site moderators should *moderate* aggressively. (Slash is a pretty good medium for this; it filters out some of the flames for me, though of course they hang around at 0 or 1 before a moderator sees them.)
Hmm (Score:2)
Look at it a different way. What if we are not really creating jerks, but actually enabling communications so transparently, effortlessly, and safely, that people feel
The paradox of a truly "free" society is that it will not tolerate any form of captivity...the paradox being that by making that requirement it is in fact no longer truly "free" (you are not "free" to impinge on freedom - isn't this reminiscent of the GPL-BSD war?). So too with free speech and free minds. Perhaps what you consider "being jerks" is a symptom of a culture which forces you to have concrete support for your views. Baptism by fire. Perhaps it is a Zen thing...you can only succeed by not trying...you can only be accepted by not trying...
Then again, I just pulled this out of thin air...
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:4)
The first amendment (contrary to apparently popular belief) doesn't say a damn thing about intimidation, or your own willingness to speak. If you say something, and someone else says you're wrong (and maybe even mocks you for it), free speech has not been violated, it has in fact worked perfectly.
I'm sick and fscking tired of these Politically Correct morons wanting to use the first amendment to censor anyone who doesn't agree with them. "But they're *scaring* me!" or "That's *sooo* offensive." doesn't quite work as an argument. There are pre-existing legal guidelines for harassment, online or off.
Free speech means exactly that, it does *not* mean "nice speech." It does not mean speech that's been pre-approved by the standards of a snobby elite few seeking to control our methods of expression. And while I personally agree that well thought out, nicely articulated pieces are leagues more effective than a crude flame, I will defend to the death the right of the 14 year old 5cr1p7 k1dd13 to flame a newbie. They're 1's and 0's people. They don't hurt people.
Anthony
A thought (Score:2)
IMHO, all that's really changed is that we can no longer hide under the covers and pretend that it's the "arrogance of youth", "teenage tantrums", or (the classic) "somebody else's problem". The Internet brings home the reality that, no, it isn't "somebody else's problem". It's EVERYBODY'S problem. And unless everybody wakes up to that reality, nothing's going to change, except maybe for the worse.
There's no difference, in terms of what's involved, between hotwiring a car & joyriding, or breaking into a server containing company secrets and using it to surf prawnography sites, deleting stuff when the disk gets full.
Well, maybe there's one. If it's a car on your street (but not your own), you're likely to breath a sigh of relief, and brush it off. If it's a server on your network, even if it's not your own, you're likely to demand action. Now. Because it affects you.
THAT is the key difference the Internet has made. Not in attitudes, not in scale, but in who it involves. Who it affects. It's no longer a safe distance, an entire TV screen away, somewhere in another city. It's no longer a drama on TV with two kids screaming at each other, or the neighbor's kid who's had "too much to drink".
You can't pass the buck any further, and so it's left with you. You have to get out of your cozy denial, your "happy, shiny" world, and see reality for what it is, grime, muck and all. And every day nobody cleans it up, saying "it'll get better", "it's meant to be that way", or "it's someone else's job", it'll just get worse. Muck won't clean itself off, no matter how much you ignore it. If you don't do something, anything, then nothing will get done at all.
Welcome to the Rust Bucket. Enjoy your Slime Mold.
When the stakes change, so does the discourse. (Score:2)
talk (a rough edge does not a flamer make),
there's another trend that will cause flaming to recede.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
But everyone knows if you're a flamer, and
an attention worthy net persona is a good
asset even (or especially) if it's pseudonymous
(or insecurely semipseudonymous).
grepping -v for Natalie Portman,
Is Slashdot racist? (Score:4)
I don't know about "narrow", though. Sure, I can shrink my browser down to 640x480 and have Slashdot fit sometimes, but what about when stupid ACs create a thread nested 25 deep? Then Slashdot becomes one of the broadest sites on the web. Site width is definitely a more complicated issue than color.
Speed is the issue (Score:4)
I've been in a company where we went from having no e-mail to having e-mail. There was a period where e-mail was flooded with knee jerk responses and offers for free kittens. After the learning curve, people got the idea, and e-mail because usefull, not just a buch of junk. I think the internet, given the huge number of people, will need a great deal of time for the signal to noise ratio to settle down. There will always be newbies and downright rotten people to mess things up, but there is hope for the newbies.
We were all newbies once. We got better.
Remember, this whole internet thing has been around for just a short time. It took many years for societies to develop. This internet society needs to have its growing pains also. Things will get better, but given the vast number of people involved, it is going to take a few decades for things to settle out.
--
Geek political correctness (Score:3)
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:3)
Yeah, and verbal abuse is just sound waves. They don't hurt people! Child porn and is just light reflected from a surface! It doesn't hurt people! Racist graffiti is just paint on a wall! etc, etc.
I don't think we can really go with this deconstructionalist approach. Sure, online postings are one step further removed from reality, but I don't this gives people a God-given right to spout any old guff and expect other people to have to read it.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:4)
Bullshit. The first amendment is not designed to allow ACs to post on
You can blame moderators, meta moderators or rob for the karma of a given comment, but ultimately, you will be able to read that comment. And the poster of that comment can do so anonymously.
ALL Form, NO Content... (Score:3)
LINE 1: Online, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than techno-savvy young white men away from coherent public discussion of technology.
Not true. The other social groups just don't discuss it on the online, hostile environments you describe. Take my non-technical friends: They discuss it down the pub. ...and yes, they do it coherently!
LINE 2: These men are invariably smart and skilled, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference.
On what EVIDENCE is this sweeping statement based? I would guess that it is your perception. You are not, by your own admission, qualified to do this.
I stopped reading after this!
Online vs. offline: flaming pays (Score:2)
Ofcourse.. being a little too rude may cause them not to take you very serious, so make it an intelligent insult, preferably so they don't notice you insulted them until you're out the door.
//rdj
ya know, every little bit "helps" (Score:2)
i've just recently started reading slashdot (i've been told to read it by both a man and a woman), and it took me, oh, i don't know, 10 minutes to notice that the vast majority of posts seems to come from men. from men who are pretty positive that they are if not the only ones on the planet, then the only ones who read slashdot and post accordingly. i saw an old article--a "dating guide" for geeks--that was in the funny section that was totally sexist not only in its presuming that all geeks were male, but also made a bunch of other sexist comments and assumption. i might get blasted as a rabid feminist with no sense of humor, but i assure you, when humor is part of a culture that is often hostile to anyone not white, male, straight, etc., it's hard to find it funny.
in other words, many people here might think that they're not contributing to biases just because they're not posting _complete_ sexist crap, but acting as if men are the only ones around here adds up to some pretty strong sexism--consciously or unconsciously, it renders women invisible.
Breeding communities of jerks (Score:5)
Uhh.. (Score:4)
I really don't like either this article or the previous one. I think that Jon is doing nothing more than writing paragraphs of drivel whining about being flamed by some AC. I know I can't wait to see part three. (I wonder what percentage of the people who see this comment actually read Jon's article in its entirety.)
Yes, I can filter him out, and no, I don't want to. The comments on his articles are usually a good read. Barring, of course, the 200 comment religious flamewar on his last -real- article. (Re: God hates fags, or does he?)
In part one, he took issue with some anonymous person asking him to "Please Die". Well, I'm not anonymous, and this may only be my opinion, but Jon... If this is the best you can do, -please- go away, find a corner, and curl up in it. If you choose to die at this time, press 1. If you choose to live, press 2. You must be using a true touch tone phone. Thank you for calling the talking yellow pages.
(Posted with my +1 for the hell of it.)
------
Re:Devils Advocate (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.
I see nothing about "extremely poor taste" in that anywhere.
What does freedom of speech mean to you? To me, it's an image like most things:
Interviewer: Do you believe in absoloute freedom of speech?
Me: Yes.
Interviewer: But surely you don't believe in the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?
Me: Fire!
Anthony
(I stole that bit from Abbie Hoffman. So shoot me
On the Internet, no one knows... or do they? (Score:3)
The now famous cartoon about nobody knowing one is a dog holds also for age, and gender, and almost anything else one wishes not to reveal if one is careful.
Almost anything. There is a glaring exception that shines through every time. The exception is maturity
Maturity will show every time, as those lacking it simply haven't the control to required to fake it. A mature post or comment or action can come from a 13 year old girl, or 97 year old man. Both can hide gender or age if they so choose, by making the effort. Perhaps online discussion forums are revealing that maturity is a lot less common than many of us would like it be. Of course, the immature posts and comments tend to stand out, as out of place, so maybe they just get more notice, like a brat yelling his (or her) lungs out it only takes a one or maybe a few to make life miserable for those around them.
Slashdot is at least trying to deal with the 'brats' by moderation. It is an imperfect system, as shown by the need for meta-moderation, but is at least an attempt to deal with the problem. I've seen other web-board sites (gross oversimplifation of /. isn't it?) close rather than work at the problem. I prefer the /. take: acknowledg the problem and at least try to fix it.
Passion for TRVTH -vs- empathy (Score:2)
For instance, one fellow at work was giving his view of uP history to a small audience and stated that the Apple II used a Z80 - now I could have either 1) just let it go, or 2) embarass him and stand up to make a correction. One who is a stickler for 'the trvth' often steps on toes and creates bad feelings which often creates a counter attack of some kind. Maybe this is why a lot of 'people oriented' people just like to talk in vague meaningless new-age psychobabble that's not right/wrong or provable one way or other, just a way of sharing feelings.
My friends call it 'intellectual arrogance' that alienates, nobody likes a wise guy, those people who think they know everything are particularly annoying to those of us who do.
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Not all of us are white men! (Score:5)
LK
PS, why is it that I dread it every time I see Katz's name on a story?
Guns don't kill people (Score:2)
Free speach is not about the right to say any thing one pleases, it's about being able to voice an opinion. There are such things as pointless spewing, and the line between worthwhile and worthless is fine and fuzzy.
While I agree that too many people tend to over-react to what is only words (sexual harassment is real hard to quantify for example), I disagree that words don't hurt. Words mean whatever we want them to, but some words have very specific conotations of which we are all well aware.
Did you ever get bullied as a kid? Did it hurt?
Words from an anonymous stranger online may be easier to shrug off, but people are usually not able to just tune out their emotions. Those that can are often seen a clinically dysfunctional, since emotional reaction is a normal human trait.
And for another slant on the argument, the words of a judge are just words, but they do carry consequences.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:3)
You've taken my arguments out of context. You're absoloutely right, in the way I was talking about "hurting people." *Looking at* (gasp) racist graffiti or (real gasp) child porn never actually *hurt* anyone. It may have scarred them emotionally, but I wasn't talking about that. Completely different use of the word "hurt."
I don't [think] this gives people a God-given right to spout any old guff and expect other people to have to read it.
But you don't *have* to read it! That's the beautiful part! You can browse at a 1, or a 2, or go read CNN, or Suck, or The Onion. God is dead, we are all completely free!
Anthony
We're all jerks, n'OK? (Score:3)
People have been commenting on the death of civility long before the Internet phenomenon (since the end of the Victorian age, at least). Each generation bemoans the brashness of the one that follows.
The phenomena Katz notes aren't restricted to online, and are hardly related to anonymity. Remember "Talk Radio?" "Trash TV?" People on Jerry Springer are hardly anonymous, but that probably makes them less rather than more civil. The fact is that some people are mean and/or crude, and always have been. Technology just widens our view so we see more of what's been there all along.
I think Katz is seeing differences where none exist. Bullies have always gotten the "reward" of hollow respect from their peers. Anonymity actually makes them easier, not harder, to ignore--they're just annoying noise, not some menancing presence threatening physical violence.
Katz obviously has some issues with various social behaviors, and some insights (and I would argue misconceptions) concerning them. But when he tries to show some technological connection, he rarely hits the mark. He still belongs here, since his stuff certainly qualifies as "news for nerds." But he should back off from these failed attempts at techno-hipness and focus on the more general issues in his in-group/out-group social commentary.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:3)
ACs that post flamebait have every right to say what they do. And the consequence is that they get moderated down by the greater population.
Racists that spew forth garbage are villified by society. If said statements occur in the wrong place at the wrong time, they might cost you a job, a promising career, and friendship.
Have a little faith in the system - eventually we (as a whole population, not an internet community) will sort out our so-called online lives so that things that are acceptable online mirror acceptablility in real life.
*putting on asbestos suit*
This is where a moderation system such as slashdot's works well, and is ahead of its time. The simple fact is that there is accountability through a moderation system, and the system works well. Not perfect, but then again, it is early in development as well. But the greater good decides what comments are worth being bumped up. Just like real life. People who have something good to say are eventually heard by people who want good out of life, and those with nothing but garbage to contribute are marginalized by society.
Where is the problem? (Score:2)
As a member of the white, male, oppressive class, what the heck do I know about harrassment, including sexual harrasment? Have I ever experienced it? Yeah, I have. I called it high school. Did I let it drive me into a snivelling ball, unable or unwilling to deal with others of my race who offend me? Heck no. I coped. So can you.
And yes, there are discussions I absent myself from. I rarely read slashdot comments with less than a threshold of 4. Not because I simply can't deal with them, but because I have better things to do with my time. Not everyone can participate in all discussions- and that's OK too.
Pardon me for not being PC. Pardon me for not being warm&fuzzy. Pardon me if I've offended you. Pardon me if I don't give a flying fuck if I've offended you. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:3)
...unless they let them.
Yes, you can be hurt by words, but only if you let yourself be hurt. Unfortunately, our politically correct world teaches people to let themselves be hurt.
Our society trains us to take offense. Instead, it should train us to understand that what some idiotic 14-year-old without the guts to name himself things just does not mean squat.
If someone says "fuck you, you idjit, use emacs", have the self-confidence to ignore it. If you take offense, you've just given them what they want. Stop giving them what they want, and they'll stop.
Re:The old "sky is falling" Jon is back... (Score:2)
//rdj, enforcing a stereotypical view of white young men.
Whatever - free speech rulez for fostering (Score:2)
Some people just need to get asbestos retinas - but there isn't a day I don't find some neat expression or turn of phrase on
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Make that /. ya fscking bozo (Score:2)
Color on the Net (Score:2)
Really? And how do you know what color people are on the Net?
How many people on Slashdot aren't male caucasians?
Re:How very true (and sad) (Score:2)
If you post a question to a usenet newsgroup related to that topic, you are never offtopic and should get your question answered. If the question is in the FAQ, you might get a pointer to the FAQ and possibly other hints.
A personal response might be more in your favor if you visit irc, such as #linuxhelp. If no one answers, you can try back at a later time when a knowledgable person might be around.
I often see a few rude people, but ignore those disturbed people for the moment. Usenet and irc are for learning. Use it!
Nitpicks (Score:3)
As a woman (yes, one of the few, the proud, the mighty), I have to corroborate Katz's note that I'm more likely to post to women-only or moderated groups and lists than to flame-fora.
That said, it's not because I can't flame; I once told a
Angry young men:
Who, if you could run a demographic study on repeat flamers, would constitute nearly the entirety of the flaming population. Remember that these guys are victims of the same schooling as the rest of us. Plus testosterone
Flaming is a relatively harmless outlet for their aggravation; I'd vastly prefer that they post flames than actively try to avenge themselves upon the wider society, don't you?
Katz may not have noticed that flamers aren't rewarded as well as they'd like to be; but I doubt that Jon is used to the phrase, "Welcome to my killfile, sucker!" On
I rather doubt that your garden-variety flamer finds being ignored "rewarding".
I'm surprised at the premise that flamers somehow "inhibit" free speech. While that may be true in fora where the signal-to-noise ratio makes finding useful material impossible (many news:alt.* groups, for instance), in subject-matter areas like moderated groups, mailing lists and weblogs, flamers have a tendency to be treated like spam -- deleted or skipped past without further ado. They may take up *physical* space on screen and HD, but if you don't click on them or read them, they can't possibly waste your time.
Which is why many flames seem harmless to their creators -- they know that the only people who could possibly be affected by their posts are precisely the audience they'd like to aggravate. It's going to be rather difficult to remediate bad behavior when the only people who notice or care are the ones the perpetrator already detests
Katz and Technology:
Well, I first read [about] JonKatz at Suck, and then read his work at Netizen. So I have *some* sense of history, which I suspect that many of his more virulent flamers lack.
Katz is not a Linux programmer. Neither am I (there being less $ interest in multimedia under the various Unices than under Windows or MacOS). He's a journalist and commentator *and* technophile -- while he may not be as technically adept as most of his
If you want to rag on him for occasionally leaving in weird artifact characters courtesy of MS Word for Windoze, well, I'm totally with you there
[postscript]
My website is out-of-date, and the drive where I edit it from is currently toast (Mac OS 4G multi-partition whose partition block bit the dust while I was playing CivII). So I am no longer in need of a personal slave, the one I obtained takes up all of my free time already.
/. isn't immune (Score:2)
Some forums are worse than others: I played Q2 on heat.net for a while - the stupid ignorant comments in the live discussion lobby there was sickening. Is the average person in the world so dumb and ignorant? When people would start making bigotted or rude or stupid remarks during a game, we discovered intelligent (and clean) responses soon drove them away as they couldn't reply without making themselves look more foolish. Devil's advocacy, satire and irony (and maybe a touch of gentle sarcasm) are hard for people to deal with when they're dumb.
People online seem to use language that they would not use in front of strangers in real the non-online world. Perhaps the instantness and anonymity of the medium allows somebody to fire off a response that would never field in an a face to face discussion. I for one have realised that you really need to spend more time thinking about a response online. I also spend more time considering whether I need to respond. If I haven't got anything constructive to say (+ve or -ve), then I try to not say anything. Stooping to somebody else's level, or rising to somebody else's bait (whether they meant it intentionally or not) is not going impress anybody or make me feel good about myself
Re:We've forgotten etiquette in general. (Score:2)
//rdj
there are a few reasons for that (Score:2)
i didn't say such behavior causes women to be threatened (although some might be)--i did say it makes me, for instance, feel, as if people were trying to exclude me, as a woman. here are a couple of reasons why you might not feel the same way if the situation were "reversed", as you say:
1. you would still be a man--part of the dominating system. such a comment does not upset your status quo in any way. with women, such comments emphasize the status quo.
2. you wouldn't necessarily associate yourself with brad pitt. generally, when misogynist jerks post their crap, they (consciously or unconsciously) pick one image of a woman to represent all women. and even if they didn't do it, consider that: a) they're doing it in a mostly male, and, more importantly, mostly pro-male environment and b) generally, when one member of a minority is threatened, it threatens the entire minority (ever considered why hate crimes are different from other crimes?). so, the effect is still the same.
Re:Uhh.. (Score:2)
People who insult anonymously are petty little cowards. Why should anyone care what a petty little coward thinks?
(And we certainly shouldn't prevent those who need to post anonymously from doing so because of a bunch of petty little cowards.)
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
It was your 'it's just 1's and 0's' that stung me into replying - it seemed much too disingenuous. Bulletin boards's are as much a valid communication medium as letter-writing, IMHO.
Grow some skin! (Score:2)
Yes, there is plenty of rudeness and flamefests online. Yes, most people find it unpleasant. And yes, it will deter people who don't think the information is worth sifting through the unpleasantness.
But others (the disparaged young white males) find the information very valuable, worth the sifting. And they may be less sensitive to unpleasantness as their wives have been trying to "fix" for years.
So USENET survives in spite of flamefests, trolls, and many other ills like spam, clueless posters who don't check DejaNews, and incorrect answers. When in Rome
I'm frankly disappointed that people who pretend to be diversity- and culture-conscious don't respect the USENET culture, and try to meddle with it.
-- Robert
Dear johnny boy... (Score:4)
While some of the 'slashdotters' will take all your words as a rant about personal (even though it's electronic and may have not been meant as a personal attack, it still is personal if the 'attackee' takes it personally) attacks against you, I can see that it is more of an anology to the net at large, and a clue into the minds of people (or at least I hope that is your intent, and I'm not looking too much into it)
As an admitted non-geek, you have undoubtedly faced many of the 'leet' linux dewds who feel you should turn around and never even look in their general directions - due to something as simple as some difficulty during installing linux or using a product made by microsoft. Heck, as a geek I myself have faced them and have been disgusted by their actions.
But on to my point (yes, there is one I wanted to say) - you seem to be embracing the mass media created stereotypes too much. I had the same problem with my ex-girlfriend. She didn't think I should get a pickup truck because 'only country folks' drive pickup trucks. You seem to be clumping geeks and computer lovers into a general description pulled out of magazines, news articles, and the jargon file. While that may fit some of 'us', maybe even a majority, it is by no means accurate depiction of the whole of us.
As for my thoughts on your recent article... I think that (as undoubtedly pointed out by others even though I formed this opinion even before reading the comments) that electronic communication represents the 'true' self opinion - not covered up by civil overtones and gracious words. People, even ones who seem kind and nice, are vicous animals. We are very aggressive at times, and a lot of us don't even recognize this aggressiveness. It manifests itselfs in the physical (as opposed to electronic-ie, the web) world in subtle ways, something as simple as looking at someone who offends you in some way, or talking louder than everyone else. Or bashing someone because they are not (admitidly) a geek yet they try to be part of our culture.
In the electronic world, this aggression is less hidden. There is no threat or fear of feasible physical violence to hold us back. No permanant reputation to stain. Even I have, usually only when very stressed or angry, attacked others in usenet. I am usually a mellow guy. Everyone thinks I am on drugs because of my mellowness. In the physical world, it takes a lot of effort to push me into anger. Only once have I ever physically hit someone, and I instantly hated myself for it. But, on the internet, I have struck out several times and have not regret it nearly as much.
Still, some of us are able to maintain some civility and make some usefullness out of it, instead of just attacking everything that comes into sight.
I don't think we are raising or training people to be vicous.
We already are.
We always have been.
Not about what we can do, but what we should do (Score:3)
Machiavelli said that a main strength of a republic is the virtue of its citizens, gained from having power and thus responsibility. The question isn't whether we want to take away peoples' power to say things, it's whether we, as individuals, want to start taking up some of our responsibility -- to exercise restraint and to encourage each other to do the same.
Re:Same old Same old... (Score:2)
Re:Too much anonymity (Score:2)
(Your last paragraph is an example of the very incivility that is being complained about, BTW.)
Re:Listen...and listen good, buddy. (Score:2)
Of course there is. I was talking about the act of looking at child porn - I'm sure if you showed it to your grandmother (or even your average man on the street), it would cause them extreme offence and hurt. I shouldn't have used the emotionally loaded child porn example, mind you. I just wanted to get across the idea that pictures could hurt.
If people can't take verbal abuse, then something is seriously wrong with them
Yeah, stand up and take it like a man! On the contrary, in a supposedly advanced society like ours, why should anyone have to suffer verbal abuse? (I'm not talking about friendly slagging here, mark you)
I never read the rating 0 posts anyway
Well, I read at -1 and above. I have never read anything on the Internet that offended me, and I've read and saw some rum stuff. How's about that?
I'm objecting to the personal element in flaming being defended under the mantle of 'free speech', that's all.
Profiling (Score:2)
How is #2 different from when misanthropes (as opposed to misogynists) pick one image of a 'technologically savvy white male' or 'Slashdot poster' to represent all Slashdot posters or Internet users? Katz may be right in that there are a handful of very hostile young, affluent, white males who like to cause trouble. Until he provides some sort of evidence for it, I'll just assume that he's picking on his favorite whipping-boy. If it's wrong to stereotype women or minorities, shouldn't it be wrong to stereotype people in general?
(ever considered why hate crimes are different from other crimes?)
Because some thoughts should be illegal? (note the bitter sarcasm)
--
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
There's a fine line between having a thick skin and being emotionally numb. Abuse can hurt, especially if it's done constantly and correctly ("Fuck you, use emacs" is a bad example; it's not a very "good" flame).
Besides, flamers kill off conversation. They're as bad as spammers -- each nonsensical "Natelie Portman" post that chews up bandwidth in a slashdot discussion is as much a disincentive to read the comments as constant spamming is to usenet.
The real problem with the net as a communication medium is and always has been that there are almost never any sort of moderating influences. I know that if I push someone far enough in meatspace, I'm libel to at least end up in a fight. There's no incentive for any sort of discipline.
Free speech can only exist in a system where consequences can exist. As another poster noted, I can be as racist as I want to be, but I can't expect everyone to say, "Well, if that's his opinion, so be it..." In a medium where I'm not risking anything, where I hide safe behind my computer, the immature rantings of a few people can effectively drive others from a forum. As Jon's engineer pointed out, why should I hang around such a hostile place?
The moderation system is an excellent start to imposing consequences to (as opposed to restrictions on) speech. IMHO, it should be taken farther -- I really miss the old /. days.
Try this out -- hit /.'s archives and find a really old story. Read through the comments and compare the tone, civility and usefullness of that conversation to any given current discussion. Note the much better S:N, note the decreased number of redundant posts and ask yourself which discussion you'd rather be participating in.
----
On-line parallel with car driving (Score:2)
I see a perfect parallel. Both on-line communication and cars put up barriers to normal inter-personal communication which uses non-verbal cues. Both cases make the person on the other side seem less human, thus less deserving of civility.
As well, the physical distance and the "leveling" of both situations (in a car, I can injure you just as easily as you can injure me; in an on-line exchange, I can insult you just as easily as you can insult me) seems to bring out more agressive behaviour.
Thus we see flame wars and road rage. Same phenomenon in my eyes.
Redundant Article? (Score:2)
I think that Jon made some very good points with his first article. But this second one was largely pointless. Mostly he posted some complaints from other people and made overly sweeping generalizations this time.
Sexual harassment is hardly unique to the tech sector. Female fire fighters and construction workers are just as likely to fall victim to it as female Perl hackers or C programmers. Either way, I have seen female flamers that are just as vicious as male ones on Usenet, so I don't believe that it is just a matter of angry, white males taunting women. Idiots come in all shapes, sizes, and genders.
Slashdot aleady has some of the most sophisticated filtering and moderation tools you are likely to see in a web forum; so a lot of the problems that Jon complains about can simply be remedied by browsing at a higher threshold.
It's too bad about all the hate mail he keeps getting. But how much of it is self-inflicted? I have noticed that in the past that a lot of Jon's posts have been riddled with with stray characters like ?,&,=, and so forth. Most of his recent stories do not contain garbage characters. On the contrary, they are quite nicely formatted complete with horizontal rules for better readability. Isn't it at all possible that some of the taunts hurled at Jon for the fomatting of his previous posts might have encouraged him to improve his posting habits? I'm not trying to justify gratuitious flames, I'm just suggesting that not all criticism, even harsh criticism, is destructive.
By the way, I happen to be an Hispanic male. I don't usually feel the need to point that out but Jon's riffing on the white males in this article kind of bugged me.
You missed the point... (Score:2)
You do not have the freedom to be mean.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
If no one can hear anything but your yelling, then certainly no one else can speak, freely or otherwise.
The same can happen when an eletronic forum becomes bloated with so much junk that the signal to noise ratio approximates zero. Hence the UDP [stopspam.org].
I know, I know. You can just "walk away" right?
You can be spammed out of a forum and start another and hope all those other folks can find it before the spammers do, right?
So you should change your email address when it gets so spammed that you can't use it anymore? What happens when every email address is that way? When happens when every USENET forum is that way? ALmost every communicaton o nthe internet that isn't somehow moderated is already suffering from these problems.
And don't forget that harassment can occur in any communicaton, and speaking with anger or foul language is different than harrassing someone with your speech. BOth of these problems already plague the net.
--
Go back to usenet. (Score:2)
If you can still stomach using Usenet, more power to you. Personally, I find that slashdot is starting to degenerate into the same sort of crapola that drove me away from usenet in the first place.
I don't want to deal with flamers and spammers and people who think they have a license to behave like complete jackasses. That's why I almost never use usenet anymore.
----
Online Communities vs. Real Life (Score:2)
I see what Katz is saying here in regards to online communities. Back when I had no life and plenty of spare time as an undergrad, I wasted a couple of hundred hours on a MUD, and a couple of thousand on IRC. Flamers and newbies often got noticed by being outrageous and obnoxious. But experienced people could not only control the flamers, but tame the reactions of net.regulars. I led some pretty decent flamewarz when I first got on the net, then spent 2-3 years trying to stop them in a couple of forums.
Online communities are evolving to handle the new users. (See every other thread on the planet that has "Imminent Death of UseNET/IRC/Internet Predicted".) The AOL flood, the spam flood, now the WebTV flood - they bring in 10 people who flame and fade away, and leave 1 person who really gives a crap.
But to my point: Katz tries to extrapolate out that we're all java-writing code punks who sit amongst year-old pizza boxes and empty bags of Cheetos, flaming away at him instead of playing Duke Nukem. (This reply puts aside the journalistic and scientifically poor decision to write about his own personal experiences...) Ok, so I know people like that, too. I think we all do, or we've seen them in places other than movies. But while some of my friends had that life for a while, they discovered the business side of the web. You remember - the dot.com revolution? The key: There are rewards for civility!
Those people quickly discovered that being a sloth and coding may produce great work, but it does not impress a client. Those who would rather be eccentric, angry artists have been fired by clients who just don't put up with that crap. The mainstream of business still wants the blue suits and respect. Look at the recent Apple Computer press conferences... While suits may be a little extreme for most coders, but I've seen some of the new techo-elite in the coffeehouses, and it's their wardrobe.
So, I'll leave Katz's complaints to the invisible hand of the market. Slowly, those flamers will need jobs and will be compelled to learn civility. Otherwise they will be forced to give up their access due to unemployment, or because the men with the white coats are taking them away.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
"Growing Pains" (Score:2)
While it is true that this "society" is still young, as societies go, it is still a subset, or more likely a combination, of existing societies, each of which has similar rules about how one is to treat others.
If we are to take the "growing pains" argument to RL, however, we find that it loses some validity. When I join (or form) a group of people that meet to do similar things, such as a book club, if one or two of the members start berating or browbeating the other members, I'm not going to call that "growing pains." I'm going to point out that those people are being rude, and probably ask them to leave.
The real problem, as Katz points out (but does not expand on) is that there is no responsibility taken by flamers for their actions. Even in the case where the flamer is asked to leave, assuming they do, they can always come back under a different name, or email address, or even IP (assuming they know about those).
More than likely, though, since they percieve no threat or danger from their behavior, they'll just continue, probably even getting worse. We've all seen it.
So, the real trick is not only to point out when people flame, but to try to explain to them how useless and hurtful and counterproductive it is. I know that 14-yr-olds sometimes have problems understanding, but even if you can bring one flamer to the light side, you've succeeded, and we're all a little better off.
-ristoril
Re:Jerks in cyberspace... (Score:2)
Re:Too much anonymity (Score:2)
-E
At least ... (Score:2)
At least Talisman hasn't bothered to respond to this discussion. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that he's reading it, though, despite what he said yesterday.
I was a bit surprised that he outed himself here in public. It says a lot about his social frame of reference, which appears to be quite different from my own.
I tend to agree with most of what Mr. Katz has said in this essay. I've witnessed the formation of several "specialized" (i.e. women-only, etc.) discussion groups, and the conditions which forced their creation weren't pretty. And the participants on both sides of the fence were the poorer for their separation. I wish I could see a good solution to this problem, but sadly, I haven't yet.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
- They're 1's and 0's people. They don't hurt people.
Yeah, and verbal abuse is just sound waves. They don't hurt people! Child porn and is just light reflected from a surface! It doesn't hurt people! Racist graffiti is just paint on a wall! etc, etc.I hate to tell you this - but that is true, online. The anonymity and "It's just a computer" attitude that leads to flames and abuse online, is also the best defense against it. Flamers are attacking an abstract; it is incredibly rare for a flamer to attack someone he knows better than "having seen on TV sometime" and the best defense is to delete it and move on - that is what killfiles are for.
as for your "examples".. well.
Unless you are suggesting the flamers actually come around to your living room and wave their little sheets of paper in your face, I don't see how this applies - someone in your face, shouting abuse at you is damaging. Someone on a TV screen hurling abuse normally gets a disgusted look and a reach for the channel-selector.
Ah, enter the Horseman of the Internet <grin>
If child porn is real, then it is evidence of a particularly sick crime, and is best forwarded to the authorities. If it is false/simulated (Suitably shaven legal-age girl, for example) then it is mildly distasteful, but not actively harmful. I can't imagine it being attractive enough for you to seek it out, and contrary to the opinion of those going for the Horseman vote, you aren't likely to suddenly find it in your Inbox one day.
Indeed it is - and usually a criminal offence (if a minor one). A better example may be someone paying for a billboard with a racist message on it, but even then, normally that wouldn't be accepted by those that sell billboard space. In any case, you need to do the virtual equivilent of painting it over....
I don't think we can really go with this deconstructionalist approach. Sure, online postings are one step further removed from reality, but I don't this gives people a God-given right to spout any old guff and expect other people to have to read it. /. moderation structure is that pure "flame" posts seem to drop out very fast from moderation - the disadvantage of course is that "bad" moderation can and does occur, with valid and worthwhile posts being pushed down by those that disagree with them (mind you, this would be much worse if the moderator wasn't forced to choose between abusing his power and losing the right to type up a rebuttal, or replying and losing any chance of pushing down the post you dislike). People who prefer to live in a cosy cocoon of "view at 1" or even 2 or 3 may never even see such things - and that choice is as much or more their right as the initial poster's write to submit their text for view.
I don't think that is the point being made here - normally an open forum IS a right to spout any old guff (subject to the structure of the forum of course) but ISN'T a right to expect anyone to read it. One of the advantages of the
--
Assertion w/o evidence is his game (Score:3)
Katz asserts that the early days of the net were the breeding ground for a class of people who were inherently and overtly hostile to these non-white, non-male newcomers. Although the demographics of many of the early net users are generally white and generally male, this does not prove the point. For instance, I am both white and male and I am not hostile to people who are neither.
Katz asserts that a preexisting angry streak in the geek subculture has permeated the culture of the net, adding that he believes that is generated by the demographics of the net-- his angry young men. Again, Katz uses the proof by assertion method. As a young man I was hostile toward many things. In fact, my wife accuses me of being hostile to other drivers even today. However, somehow I was able to keep from adopting this hostility in written or spoken communication (well, there were a few instances, but beer was involved).
Katz asserts that harassment of a sexual nature is endemic in the technical workplace, and uses a complaint at Juno to back up his claim. However, he fails to note that sexual harassment claims are filed in every industry and that most of the truly notable cases are not in the technical industry. The number of women who function as CEOs and officers of technology companies stands in stark contrast to Katz' assertion that the technical workplace and cyberspace are replete with harassment.
One of the arguments that Katz returns to over and over again is that the difficulty that people have posting to or using /. is inherently a part of the hostility that is often seen on the site. Of course, it couldn't be that the site is difficult to use (it is, especially for newer web users) or that the content, generally of a more technical nature, is difficult for those not versed in both technology and open source issues to understand. These are significant barriers to participation for some. However, this is a good thing in that it helps (along with moderation) to keep the noise level down somewhat. When these people understand the content and the mechanism, they will be ready to join the discussion.
The assertion that there is some sort of "broad geek conspiracy" to keep women, non-whites, and other "undesirables" off of the net or in their own "content ghettos" is an example of the worst kind of hysteria, and deserves no place in a /. feature. While it IS appropriate to challenge the participants on /. to make /. and the web a better place, there is no reason for the type of mindless stereotyping of geeks that Katz has so proudly rejected in the past.
Katz tries to tie all of this together with some developmental psychology theory, using this to assert that the ability to "act" in a hostile manner online will lead to adults that are inherently hostile due to the fact that they never learned how to behave. Last time I checked, the same people who are online also exist in the offline world, where they shop, interact with others, go to restaurants, and engage in a variety of day-to-day activities that expose them to a different environment where they likely are less hostile than online. I also imagine that within each hostile poster's own community there is less of this hostility- I bet that they can get along.
Finally, the tendency of Katz to insert his own experiences as a validation of poorly-thought-out assertions is self-serving and insulting. Katz seems surprised that on one of the most pro-open source web sites on the net that the reaction to his use of Word was negative in some quarters. That Katz would be surprised by this is baffling. The use of these examples from his own experience gives a tone of self-justification and self-imposed martyrdom that makes the skin crawl as one reads it. The effect is to insult the reader, which makes me a little hostile.
Re:oh purlease (Score:2)
The flamey culture some online fora experience is probably related to some of the things Katz brings up -- young, poorly socialized men butting heads and dicksizing for intellectual dominance, enhanced by a low-accountability medium. But (a) It doesn't take as long to say as he takes, and (b) it's not as all-pervasive an atmosphere as he wants to make it out to be. Women geeks have plenty of resources, and are perfectly capable of (1) dishing it out as well as taking it or (2) ignoring it altogether or (3) going somewhere that doesn't have that kind of culture, like, for example, most of the freaking Net.
yeesh. talk about your mountains out of molehills.
gomi
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:4)
However, with freedom comes personal responsibility. At some point, one most grow up and be mature in their communications. We do need education out there that teaches these 14-year old 5crip7 k1dd13z that its NOT NICE to flame newbies.
No, no one should be silenced for any reason. Thats why Slashdot, for instance, allows you to turn all the moderation features off. OTOH, Slashdot has a moderation system. And that moderation system is a form of "social pressure" (to use Katz' own words) to be responsible for what you say.
So, if you can't be responsible enough to come up with intelligent, well-thought out comments, then the people who care about that sort of thing will ignore you.
I think though, that the Slashdot moderation system is sort of self-serving. Those who care enough to moderate are also likely to be the same sort of people with like mindsets. OTOH, I have been pleasantly surprised in the past when posts derrogatory towards Linux or open source have been moderated up, especially when the poster was intelligent and thoughtful.
No free speech does NOT mean nice speech. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect offensive speech. But exercising your free speech means being responsible and at least have something intelligent to say if you're going to say something. Don't say crap like Katz is on crack, because that will get you nowhere. If you disagree with Jon Katz, or Rob Malda, or Linus Torvalds or RMS or ESR, or anyone, then say WHY you disagree, and bring up intelligent points to support your case. Don't just say Katz is a moron, if you really think he's a moron then PROVE IT, and people will respect you for it.
Re:"Growing Pains" (Score:2)
Right. But, you're putting things into the physical perspective. It took time for book clubs to form. First, books had to be invented. Clubs also had to be formed. Rules of discussion had to be formed. Let's pretend that you invent the book, the club (a gathering, not a weapon), and the discussion on the same day. Sit a group of people down, give them these three things, and you've got trouble. The people will eventually work out a protocol of reading, grouping, and discussing, but it won't happen on the first day. It won't happen on the second day. It will take time.
The internet (in the widely available consumer model ) has been around for only 5 years or so. You can't expect people to develop norms and protocols that quickly. There are some commonly identified protocols/responses/objects (spam, flames, newbies, etc.) that exist. In the book club situation, you ask the combatants to leave. This is the established protocol. Of course, another person may handle things differently by hitting the combatants. There will alway be people that don't hold to the norms.
You also suggest a method for dealing with flamers. I fully agree. But this is not the norm yet. Part of my original argument was that e-mail (I should extend that to all e-communication) is too quick. People don't stop to think. Thinking needs to become part of the protocol, and it currently is not. Give it some time, and I think it will change.
Human society has had centuries to develop. The internet has had 5 years.
--
noise, offense, filter (Score:2)
On-line provides greater technology to develop protection against inherent offensiveness in ALL communication, if so desired.
On-line, one can write scripts (Perl or otherwise) to automatically filter out much of offensive or noisy communication. In non-virtual communication, there is no off button to the jerk who cuts you off the freeway and flips you the finger.
Spam got so bad that I code auto email filters based on sender, based on subject heading keywords, based on text context keywords, and slot them into various folders (some of them also auto delete
There is no automation nor filters in the real world. Imagine how wonderful life can be if you can code filters for RL. Not to say all the programs and scripts I can code to automate organize my desk and office. And "garbage collection."
// noise worse than offensiveness
The biggest problem with ALL communication (on- and off-line) is not offensiveness. It is low signal to noise ratio. Completely demonstrative of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is easier detected (and thus filtered) on-line because you can -grep "hot grits".
Inverse grep is antidote from noise.
// Filter principles applied in RL for greater signal ratio
In RL, you have to resort to the primitive algorithm of "friends" (data ID'ed by source sender) to filter. And when your "friends" are unreliable in their signal ratio, you are out of luck.
The more "emotionally gifted" individuals can adapt to a more optimal refinement algorithm over source to also "state" of source (i.e., whether "friends" will be rambling, or "friends" will be informative). Unfortunately, we cannot download such optimal filters from these gifted individuals.
In on-line world, we can GPL such filters.
// conclusion
Isn't the on-line world so much better than RL? I need an exit!
Re:Guns don't kill people (Score:2)
> thing one pleases, it's about being able to
> voice an opinion. There are such things as
> pointless spewing, and the line between
> worthwhile and worthless is fine and fuzzy.
You have half of what theprotection of "Free
Speach" is. The other half is the realization
that there is no objective and directly definable
way to say what is "Worthwhile" and what is
"Worthless".
It entails the belief that it is more important
to protect peoples ability to speak their mind
than it is to stop people from "being offensive".
The first amendment is the founders of the US
government saying "We have no way of saying
absolutely what is harmful and what is socially
constructive speach, so the only rational thing
we can do is decide to protect ALL speach"
In the words of a Judge whose name I can not
remember (which is ok, since many people seem
to even forget his words, which were much more
important) "It is better to let 100 guilty men
go free than to convict 1 innocent man".
The spirit of that should be applied whenever
possible, especially to law MAKING. It is a
direct echo of the very ideals that wrote the
first ammendment.
Abrasiveness, net-cops, spam, etc. (Score:3)
This plays off of something in the first article in this series rather well. You pointed out that there is a tendency to have a filtered view of the Internet. Each person has his own mental model of it. Those of us who do more than shop online, who actually participate in online communities, believe that the places we visit have residents in a sense and a community identity.
The instincts that lead us to protect a community from being changed beyond recognition are in direct conflict however with the Net's lack of place. Slashdot, is not closer nor farther away from comp.lang.c++ than it is from denask-l (I won't put the exact address here to keep it away from spammers). And all three of these are as easily accessible to people with the technology from anywhere.
There is a tendency to view all of the communities we encounter through the filters of our experience. Old-timers know what the community has been. Newbies believe it to be something different. The old-timers are there because it offers them something they want or need. They are going to resist losing that. And the newbies are seeking something. Where those conflict, there will be friction.
And the point I am driving toward is that this friction is good. We now have the ability to build communities around shared interests that completely transcend place. I have participated in one of these for years that doesn't even have a single fixed location on the net, the online community of Esperantists. You will find us in several newsgroups, mailing lists and web sites. Such communities must resist undermining the central defining characteristics of the community. To the extent that they can succeed in that, the Internet is no longer a homogenizing force. Instead, it allows small, widely dispersed groups to form communities. But to police community identity requires people who are willing to escalate to abrasiveness in order to exclude people who insist on using a forum in ways that will undermine its central purpose.
This resistance to seeing a community destroyed by off-topic use is perhaps the most persuasive argument against spam. Individual people or companies selling online may be able to argue that they are selling to the right groups. Unlike broadcast media, even if they are right, there is no authority, no owner, enforcing a ratio of on-topic content versus advertising. Self-regulation might be tolerated easily (advertising a web site with product information in a
Biology resorts to game theory in some cases to explain the balance achieved between the different strategies pursued by various members of a species. It applies here as well. A community composed entirely of abrasive, aggressive curmugdeons each tenaciously defending it against his own view of what the community should be is no more viable than a community with no one but an army. And yet both virtual and physical communities need their defenders. Such people must be unyielding on certain important points.
For the net to allow communities to form and survive at all will require a certain amount of conflict. It is unavoidable, and desirable. It is part of community identity.
I enjoy observing good Usenet roast. (Score:2)
Participating in this process or observing can be highly entertaining.
Note that by newcomers I don't mean newbies asking questions, but those who want to participate in discussions and provide answers. Also, the roasting tends to be in reasonable proportion to arrogance or ignorance; it starts as polite correction, but escalates if the subject proves to be stubborn, or have a childish reaction.
Once you are in the group of ``regulars'' then you don't get the flaming anymore, unless for some reason you turn into a complete ass.
In technical newsgroups, particularly the programming language related ones, what is most valued is correctness and general enlightenment (by which I don't mean that cheesy, overblown window manager).
People who yap without having a clue get trashed. This cleanses the newsgroup of misinformation, protecting impressionable newbies from confusion. It's the newbies we ultimately care about; they are the future of the programming species.
What is highly valued is an apology from someone who posts incorrect information, and a willigness to improve. Once you have a track record of giving correct answers, and making reasonable contributions to discusssion, you then fit in. That's how it works. If you have a clue to begin with, then you can skip the roasting ritual. It has nothing to do with being a young white male (for God's sake, Katz!) Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog!
There is a kind of intolerance of difference, but it's well founded. Being different by way of being deliberatly, stubbornly ignorant is not a meaningful way of being different.
Certain newcomer attitudes particularly irritate the regulars, like people who barge in and start giving advice based on the assumption that every computer has an 80x86 processor, or that certain DOS, Windows or UNIX library functions are standard everywhere and so on.
Example: newbie asks (without specifying their compiler, OS or anything) how to discard unread bytes from standard input. Then some lurking idiot invariably jumps in ``I know, use fflush(stdin)!'' which is an incorrect answer (the construct invokes undefined behavior). How can that be anything but irritating, particularly if you have seen it umpteen times? Never mind that this topic it's thoroughly treated in the FAQ. It's somewhat forgivable that the newbie asking the question hasn't read the FAQ, but it's not tolerable that someone who wants to give *answers* has not read it! Hostility is more than justifiable in cases like this.
Arrogance (Score:2)
First of all, how does Katz know that Slashdot is primarily white and male? I haven't seen any surveys that indicate that fact. Oh, he "just knows"... hmmm. Sounds like racial stereotyping to me.
But my main point is that he's making the assumption that Slashdot is somehow at the top of pyramid, and other groups are somehow excluded. He goes on to say that many females join female mailing lists.
Slashdot has a certain culture. These "female mailing lists" (whatever they are) are a different culture. I don't choose to involve myself in these mailing lists, because I don't find them appealing. Will Katz write an editorial saying that the female mailing lists must stop all talk of feminine deoderant because it makes the males uncomfortable?
If someone doesn't prefer Slashdot culture, SO WHAT? Why does every group have to be palatable to every other group?
The arrogance of Katz is presuming that Slashdot is so important to the modern world that anyone who is excluded must be at some devastating societal disadvantage. Well, with all due respect to Slashdot, it's just not that important. It's only one among a lot of sources of information, with many different cultures.
P.S. This is not excuse rudeness on Slashdot. There is rarely an excuse for rudeness, but I happen to like the open honesty.
---
Re:Mirror (Score:3)
I think the cause is the fact that you don't see or hear other humans, and that you can react instantly. I also thing that you can learn to control this - if you try. The flamers are people who don't try.
dufke
-
American Nazi Party (History Channel show) (Score:2)
The History of the Nazi Party in America provides a hard, historical overview of what Freedom of Speech means in the US over a 60-year period. A 1940(or so) rally in Madison Square Garden, complete with swastikas and a huge portrait of George Washington, is acceptable. So are the hecklers in the audience.
A post-war Nazi party is acceptable... and the guy who murdered the leader for claiming that paler whites were superior to darker-hued whites was still charged with murder.
A 70's era Nazi march through a Chicago suburb with a large death camp survivor population is acceptable... but everyone agreed that public safety would be better served by moving the parade into another suburb. The Nazis even agreed, after they won a surprising Supreme Court victory. (These Nazis were later immortalized in the Blues Brothers.)
A 80's era neo-Nazi group that robs banks to fund the revolution, and murders radio talk show hosts who mock them, is not acceptable. All of the members are serving life sentences or killed during capture.
I doubt anyone here would argue that *anything* posted to Slashdot is a fraction as offensive as acts which have been held to be constitutionally protected for years. Arguing about Free Speech, in capitalized letters, is a red herring.
On the other hand, Freedom of Assembly does not mean that every assembly (such as slashdot) must accept every Juan, Dick and Cheri that comes along and demands entry. Groups may restrict access to people with a common interest -- and expel the jerk who tries to sell life insurance in a knitting circle.
Ignoring the non-trivial fact that Slashdot, as a private organization, is not subject to Constitutional restrictions... I believe that Slashdot moderation and metamoderation fall under the "assembly" umbrella, not the "speech" umbrella, in the same manner that nobody cries out "Freedom of Speech!" when stiffled by Robert's Rules of Order.
Katz's observations are not an attempt to impose censorship, but rather a plea that Slashdot act more like a drunken college frat party than a drunken high school lockerroom brawl.
it's not your technology, it's your narcissism (Score:3)
My main objection is this: In most Katz articles, the primary topic is Katz himself. Sometimes there's a secondary topic, but once you strip out all the self-congratulation, Katz says very little of substance about that topic. As Rogers Cadenhead said in this March 1999 essay [theobvious.com]:
So now, since Katz has been flamed, he's writing a three-part series about flaming. There have been other Slashdot discussions of this topic, e.g., Thoughts from the Furnace [slashdot.org]. What does Katz have to say on this topic that's both "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters"?--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
flaming = part of mentoring tradition (Score:2)
discussions over the past few years, using bad etiquette and asking dumb questions.
There is something to this, except it's not new. This happened every fall. they were called freshmen. They would get net access, do something stupid, get flamed. Eventually they would learn the basic lesson that when they wanted to do something that they did not now much about - read the faq, man page whatever. Sometimes the computer itself "flames" them. The guy that learns about rm -rf by trying it instead of reading the man page first gets what they deserve.
The problem is twofold. 1) the new newbies have
been coming faster than the old ones can be civilised ever since The September That Never Ended (AOL) and 2) The AOL's just dump users in the deep end and give them no guidance. These users also typically lack the student mindset completely - they have no desire to learn. I'm sorry. I completely can't relate to people who truly honestly don't want to learn anything new. Best for all concerened if I just flame them early so they think I'm a twerp and avoid me.
garyr
Re:ya know, every little bit "helps" (Score:2)
I posted yesterday to say I'm a woman and don't feel flame wars, per se, are sexist. Today, I read a man telling me that women (as if *I* am chopped liver) don't like the flaming stuff.
It's really annoying to have my input dismissed like that - like it's OK to be a woman as long as I fit the stereotype someone has in their head, and if I don't, somehow I'm not really being honest or not a "real" woman. That I could LIKE the way BBS's used to be, some cool spots on Usenet still are, and slashdot is; that I could occasionally even enjoy participating in flame wars (because I'm perfectly capable of getting as annoyed as any man is); somehow means I'm not a "real" woman - you know, one of those ones we have to make the net "safe" for.
Those women piss me off - online or in the real world - going around being stupid and delicate and getting your feelings hurt so terribly easily perpetuates harmful stereotypes. And Jon's article perpetuates stereotypes also - in a particularly insulting, patronizing and victimizing manner.
In fact, if I were not answering from a state of being "meta" about flaming, I'd probably flame his ass good for being such a jerk to chicks.
Re:Not all of us are white men! (Score:2)
I'm in Pittsburgh, and if you take a little road trip down to CMU and have a peek around campus you'll see LOTS of asian and indian people in the IT field.
If my majority you mean "more than half" you'd be right, but he gives the impression that he means that there is no significant amount of non "white male" geeks. There most definately are.
LK
So we're sociologically normal? (Score:2)
Let's try something a little different:
At the gym, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than roid raging white men away from resistance training. These men are invariably buff, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and athletic jerks?
The junior high environment is driving almost every social group other than over-allowanced, undersupervised adolescent girls from coherent public discussion of what is cool. These girls are invariably knowledgeable and energetic, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and overindulged jerks?
Pretty much any group of people -- random, social, task oriented, etc -- is going to offer a complete spectrum of behaviors within the group and in interaction to outsiders. This is not restricted to technology, and while obvious territorial examples are more obvious in male-specific groups, having strong opinions and working for or against the rules is not gender restricted.
Online discussion groups, mailing lists, newsgroups and web discussions -- plus chats, ircs and muds -- all develop their own mores, rules and other social determinants, all based on the participants as well as how public they are just like in the real world. If you're in a mall talking to a close friend, you're less likely to spill your guts than if you're talking to him at home or on the phone. If you're talking to a stranger, face to face, you're not going to be as rude as you might be with an anonymous call. The technology enables behaviors that were already there, but there are plenty of avenues to allow civilized discussions and an open airing of opinions.
Ol' Boys Club? (Score:2)
I find this puzzling... on most of the web design (not backend -- visual design) lists I subscribe to, the population is split equally well between male and females. If anything, females have a slight margin over males. Regardless, everyone's thoughts are respected and the only flames come when someone quotes the freakin' digest when posting.
Actually the only person on these lists who was absolutely merciless to newbies, stupid questions, etc. was a woman.
----
Katz is a racist/sexist (Score:2)
My boards are very contentions and I have had no problem getting women to post in them -- in fact sometimes the women are just as likely to hurl off some idiotic flame as the men are. I've received plenty of email flames from women filled with expletives.
This article reminded me of those articles on women and computer games which goes on about creating more relationship-oriented games for women, ignoring the fact that a lot of female gamers (such as my wife for one) like to kick butt on Quake and cause mass destruction in AOE2. Not only does this article play to stereotypes about aggressive men, but also to stereotypes about passive women.
You know who Katz reminds me more and more of -- Douglas Rushkoff. He's a newbie poser trying to act like he "gets" it when he still doesn't have a clue about what's going on online.
Moderate that up! Re:Assertion w/o evidence is (Score:2)
I haven't noticed much of John's stuff around here before, so this 'series' is my first 'exposure' really. I thought his first part yesterday was quite well done, as someone noted it looked like he had spent a lot more time thinking this time around.
But today's part sure shows me just why he has so much 'opposition'. The first two paragraphs are *utter* and total blanket statements, with which he labels ALL techies as 'hostile'. The next 4 or more paragraphs are spurilous, as if he had only personally experienced (or heard of) a couple things in his life, and suddenly decided that "that's the way it is *everywhere*".
Now there are people using 'freedom of speech' and all that stuff to 'applaud' his "contribution" here. But if his contribution is no different than a satanist having a column in a church bulletin, or no different than a Troll in a newsgroup....?
I mean, I'm all for views and articles of thought that make us think, that make us challenge our thoughts and expand our minds. But that's not what John is doing. He's trolling. He may 'have his own column', but he's still a troll as far as I'm concerned.
We don't give just *anybody* a column in the Times, or in Newsweek, or a show on CNN, or a slot on CBC Radio. Especially if it's someone with deductive, expressive, and logical powers as weak as John's. There's a reason for that. The same reason I don't think John Katz should have a 'column' at Slashdot.
Don't give me any bull about 'freedom of speech'. He's free to do and say whatever he wants elsewhere in the world on any other website, whether he has a 'column' here, or not.
what dominating system? (Score:2)
unfair generalization (Score:2)
It *is* unfair to *both* *male* and *white* to generalize that online (male?) geek community is *more* hostile than all female one.
I have (and still am) mostly only involved in all male technology on-line circles.
My most informative, favorite group of off- and on-line friends are ALL male, ALL white, ALL geek,(ALL 3D game engine coders).
Sure they are smart. Sure they are informative.
They are also the nicest, friendliest, sweetest (and non-phony) people I know.
// hostile women groups
The worst flames I got were not from all white male tech communities.
They are "anti-code god" rants from women.
// code god respect
If I or someone else post some great hack, or some really cool code, or some useful math answers, to all white male geek communities, one gets profuse and genuine respect/thanks.
It is not a short curt "oh, thanks, it works."
More a "Wow! This is great. This is a brilliant idea. This is a great hack. I like this. I don't like this. This can be better this way. This is really cool. I didn't think of this. You are a code god!"
A great hack gets its praises sung for days on end with white male geek communities.
If you post the same code to a woman group, you get a cold curt "yeah, it works, thanks, whatever."
Not a single dissection on how brilliant the code is, or how great the hack is.
There is a lot more proper and profuse respect, aspiration to (and sometimes worship) to code god hood in white male communities.
We in the "white male geek community" does a lot of appreciation, dissection, and criticism of each other's work.
Many all-female communities don't do it as much.
// males appreciate more than all-women-groups
More white males are more appreciative and eager newbies than most women and girls I get to encounter.
A guy cares about the quality of my code, all the effort I sit there to rearrange instructions, all the time I scribble on the paper (or fire up Mathematica to cheat
It is not a short "Oh, great it works."
It's like "man, I had some time this weekend and I dig into your code, and man I love this, I love that, and I love this."
// respect from men, respect from women
Gaining respect from white male geeks are easier and make a lot more sense than from women.
All I have to do with the guys is to write good code, is to keep learning and get better.
From women, if I do that, they don't really give a crap how good I am, or whether I am good.
For guys, they care a lot how good I am, and whether I am good. All I have to do is be good, and guys will respect me.
For a lot of women, I can be 10 times smarter than I am now, they wouldn't care less.
If I told my white male geek friends I added volumetric lighting in one hour, they'd be super appreicative and supportive.
If I told all female communities, even computer-literate ones, I did that. They would be like, whatever. They couldn't care less. I couldn't earn kudos points for doing amazing things with all female communities.
So, again, white male geek communities have been more supportive.
P.S. Heh, and if you know of a "woman tech group" that is not only high tech information ratio, but has a "great math, great code, intelligence worshiping trend to it", let me know. I went to a few, and there is way too little appreciation of brilliant math, code, hack, than in their all male counterparts.
P.P.S. Please don't resp. post or flame that "these are not all-male communities" since you are in it. Fine, they are all male white communities + Corrinne. Are you happy now?
Re:Passion for TRVTH -vs- empathy (Score:2)
A bit of a tangent...
When I was back in high school, in the Advanced Physics lab (home of the ubergeeks) we had Apple IIe's with Z80 cards in them, running CP/M. (Took forever to boot, even by late-80s standards.) We had Turbo Pascal installed on them, and would hack up programs to control and read from various electronic gizmos using the joystick ports and such. (One of my experiments almost put out the eye of the county Superintendent of Schools, but that's a story for another time.) Those were the days, my friend.
Re:I enjoy observing good Usenet roast. (Score:2)
May I refer you back to this Slashdot item [slashdot.org] from January 7th? The studies discussed in the linked newsletter debunk the myth that "nobody knows you're a dog."
Now, you might say that one's identity only becomes apparent only through one's online behavior. However, as the newsletter articles point out, it's only by the most concerted effort that one can disguise one's identity. Besides, why should others have to suppress their identities in order to fit in with this "roasting?" I agree with Katz, it is very much a young male behavior, so why should the young males be the only ones allowed to their identities online?
...and I don't need Jon Katz to protect me! (Score:3)
Even worse, he has an irrepressible urge to speak for subgroups to which he has no possible claim whatsoever: teenagers, techies, women, minorities, people whose minds have been taken over by Disney, the marginally employed, or what have you. Is it just that he thinks we're more interesting/salable than true episodes from the life of a white middle-aged Jewish male writer from the Jersey burbs? Or is it that, deep down, he thinks we exist merely to provide an opportunity for his heroic white northern liberal bleeding heart protection? That makes us merely the objects of his ideas, not the subjects of our own.
Pity is also a way of feeling superior to the person being pitied. Jon Katz, if you're listening: I reject your efforts on my behalf. This particular Asian-American female doesn't need any white male to speak for her or define her or explain her to others or feel sorry for her or protect her. You need to check the construction of your own house before you start throwing bricks at other peoples'.
Re:Arrogance (Score:2)
Every culture is exclusive, just some cultures are bigger than others. I think it's incredibly rude to march into someone else's "clubhouse" and insist they change to suit the outsider. It's not as if there aren't a lot of discussion groups out there with a lot of different personalities.
And just to reiterite my previous post, I don't think there is any excuse for rudeness. However, I enjoy the vitality of Slashdot. But it's not for everyone.
Does every ice cream flavor have to be vanilla? Is it OK if some people enjoy coffee ice cream, even though we are "excluding" those who hate coffee ice cream?
---
Re:I enjoy observing good Usenet roast. (Score:2)
I agree, flaming can serve the useful purpose as feedback that you are doing something wrong. It gets excessive sometimes, but so does everything else. Ignoring a$$holes is the best way to make them go away, practice, you'll get better at it.
Here's a nice e-mail I got today, perhaps this explains why flaming (in the "you're doing something wrong" sense) is necessary
>MESSAGE OF THE DAY:
>
>Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.
>
>Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42
>muscles in your face to frown BUT, it only
>takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and bitch-slap
>the motherfucker upside the head...
4 muscles, 40 keystrokes, what's the difference.
Re:there are a few reasons for that (Score:2)
Hrm. I'd debate that you or I qualify for the 'majority' part of that sentence -- if there's an elite, we're it. Not that I feel bad about that at all. As for 'control,' citizens of Western (or well-Westernized) countries are significantly freer than citizens of less-developed or Eastern-bloc nations. US citizens in particular enjoy the greatest range of freedoms available in the world today. What threatens these freedoms is the ongoing abdication of personal responsibility. It's not my fault. The government should have stopped me. The government should have educated me. The government should have given me the tools to make a better person of myself. It's not my fault.
This refrain is heard over and over again. The voting public has discovered they can vote themselves money from the public till and the inevitable collapse of the governing system is happening all around us. If anything, there is less control now than ever before.
I understand a lot of men are really pissed off at being treated like the enemy for so long.
There is no enemy. There is no chamber of 12 old people getting together to Rule the World. There's just fallible old folks bumbling around, being greedy jerks and short-sighted fools, and sometimes (but not most of the time) evil.
If you have these types of conversations with women, about what their experience in the world as awoman is really like - you won't make silly comments like how women are equal now. Because I have a pile of experiences that you are unlikely to share...
A white woman walking down the street with her Latino sweetie is exposed to narstiness. A straight white man walking down the street is equally exposed to narstiness. The point is, we have reached equality -- we are all equally likely to be harassed by idiots. It's one of the liberating aspects of freedom -- gayfolk are as able, and as likely, to straightbash as straightfolk to gaybash. Freer, if anything -- I've caught gay friends making comments that would get them pilloried if the targets of the comments were anything other than white and straight.
It is by talking to each other, not assuming about each other, that we find out what we are like.
Right. That's what we're trying to do now. That's why your comments on the control of the majority by the minority are suspect -- unless you've talked to the members of the 'controlling minority' to know what they're like and what their plans are, it's foolish to say they control the majority (similarly undefined), or even to assume that it's a bad thing.
gomi
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
Yes, I'm already seeing evidence that the pendulum of the slashdot community ethos is now swinging back the way it came. Beware, that way lies danger.
Already it has reached the point where any sort of anti-Linux or anti-open source post which doesn't employ swear words or "hackerspeak", is almost guaranteed to get moderated up, for the sake of political correctness.
Don't you people learn? If you *overdo* the tolerance thing you end up losing everything you once dared to believe in. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that the particular minority concerned (in this place, that'd be the pro-Microsoft faction) who are benefiting from your studied and increasing tolerance, will push their agenda until they have won. You won't see *them* exercising tolerance.
If you think it doesn't matter, if you think this war of words is ultimately harmless, or if you think that no price is too much for complete and untrammelled freedom of speech...then just remember this:
The expanded world of open source we enjoy today *only* became possible *after* its community woke up to the importance of propaganda and began taking on the media and the big software producers by using their own tactics against them.
In case you hadn't noticed, the war isn't over yet. Think DeCSS, think Quicktime4, and think what Microsoft is going to try to do with Windows2000.
There *must* be rational and open debate, but there also has to be a line drawn somewhere between acceptable discourse about relative shortcomings of open source vs proprietary products...and sponsored propaganda attacks from disguised Microsoft employees.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
"minority" groups need to speak up... (Score:2)
If the geek crowd was the Republican Party, I think an appropriate analogy would be to compare the angry young men to the hardcore conservatives (Christian Coalition etc.). Not only do they wield disproportionate influence within their own group, but outsiders (Jon Katz springs to mind) tend to identify them as the group (i.e. geek = angry white young male) itself. This is a wrongful perception that definitely needs to be fought.
unfair to male and unfair to white (Score:2)
On-line hostility has been invariably shown from experience that:
Hostility = 1 / ( knowledge * ability * contribution )
Hostility = F ( gender ), where F is a Merseine Twister.
(yes, the corollary is knowledge == 0 ability == 0 contribution == 0 people are infinitely hostile.)
There is much greater correspondence to stupidity and inability to hostility than gender. ( or Gender and hostility are orthogonal variables )
The smartest most capable coders are all very sharing and very humble.
The "knowing only a little is a dangerous thing" (I guess it is dangerous since when their knowledge is min-float-representation their hostility reaches NAN with insufficient precision) people are the most hostile people.
One can invariable guess the smartness of a coder by his lack of arrogant hostility towards others.
Q.E.D. Katz's generalization that geek (== knowledge, intelligence ) == hostile is false.
When geeks achieve true geekhood and guruhood, that increased knowledge and ability oversweeps their arrogance and turned them into warm fuzzy long-haired bearded "math or physics or computer science pioneers" who are quirky and friendly (this has been observed in their natural habitat).
It is that tadpole stage of temporary ignorance before the metamorphosis in which geeks demonstrate temporary hostility and arrogance to over-compensate for not being a true guru.
They are angry because they are teething.
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
That same vandal, however, is and should be protected if they simply stand IN FRONT OF the wall and scream whatever they like. No physical damage, no vandalism.
Not allways. There is a fine line between that form of free speech and 'disturbing the peace'. Consider someone standing just barely outside of your property with a bullhorn at 3AM (or whatever you consider deepest darkest sleep time) yelling "SLEEP IS THE MACHINATION OF SATAN, WAKE UP, REPENT, AND NEVER SLEEP AGAIN!". Free speech or *hole who needs to be arrested?
What do you suppose would happen to the same trolls if they showed up at a convention and during a bof session started screeching like a chimp while pouring hot grits down their pants? Other than possable psych evaluation, they'd probably be escourted out of the building by security.
I am a strong free speech advocate, and if people want to talk about naked petrified people with grits in their pants, they should be free to do so, in a forum that wants to hear it. Perhaps they should start a mailing list.
The thing of value that is damaged by such nonsense is the discussion. That's why a number of newsgroups are dead now, it got too hard to pick out the 3 real articles out of the 1000 spams and mindless flames.
Re:How very true (and sad) (Score:2)
Got to protest some of this nonsense (Score:3)
No, Jon, I'm afraid that these attacks often have much to do with what you think and write. The trouble is, you won't even entertain the idea, so instead you have to demonize people who (every so often) are trying to help you.
People were going nuts trying to get you help to use Linux, and you played with a storebought computer, let your dog play with the motherboard, and have then ignored it completely.
People were going nuts trying to get you to stop using _corrupted_ ASCII encodings (you see, Microsoft has changed the encodings for ISO/Latin in such a way that when you use Word and smartquotes it produces false characters when decoded with normal ASCII). You basically ignored this, and now that you seem to be doing it properly you've formed the opinion that people are mad at you over what brand of word processor you use (and not, instead, mad because of your going along with an embrace-and-extend tactic and bringing it even here to Slashdot and then behaving like it's insignificant).
People tried to make sense of your crusade to sneak minors into dirty movies. I saw responsible parents expressing their shock and outrage that you'd seek to overrule the parenting they wanted their own kids to have. Where are your words acknowledging the harm your misguided notions could do them? Where is the humility to let you admit that you are not the ranking parent of everyone else's children?
Lastly, I myself made all too much sense of your courting Hollywood- in an era where multinational corporations are (as you yourself argue!) gaining all too much power, in an era where Big Media (as you yourself argue!) has too much control and is rapidly gaining more under a smaller and smaller set of controlling players, you, Jon, chose to seek their approval all of a sudden, and I have some suspicion that by leveraging your 'street cred' at Slashdot and Rolling Stone, you may even get your movie, and then it will literally be true that you will be in the pay of Big Media. Choke that down if you can swallow nothing else I'm saying- it is the truth, and it is the essence of what you are really seeking for yourself.
And then you have to point out that you are a paid columnist! "Most people who aren't paid columnists will go elsewhere." Do tell, really? Is this the reason you stick around? As a matter of fact, I had a Slashdot column all to myself, and I can tell you that _I_ didn't get paid, nor did I ask to. I wrote an essay on levels of interface. Some people actually said things like 'brilliant' about this essay. Some people flamed it like crazy. Some people pointedly found fault with some of my ideas. And I LEARNED from the criticism.
I don't actually know if your 'paid columnist' remark means you're paid by Slashdot. It could be read that way, or it could be typically disjointed bluster to make you look like a professional (which is rather a stretch!) If this is true, then I can only say that I would very nearly pay you _not_ to post articles to Slashdot. It does honestly bug me that you are allowed free rein to bluster on, that you resent showing even the minor courtesy of using proper ASCII, language and spelling, that in effect you seem to have formed the opinion that you have a _right_ to be 'published' at Slashdot. There is no such right, and I still don't know what Rob Malda sees in you that he continues to put up with your unpleasant and touchy attitude towards Slashdot's readership.
The traditional journalism is dead here, Jon. If you cannot summon up the humility to exist in a context _with_ your own readers and suffer them to reply to you even when they aren't saying things you want to hear, then you're going to be left by the wayside in favor of people who can handle that more turbulent dynamic, thrive on it, and grow from it. There is no soapbox for you to stand on. You are no better than us.
-chris johnson
Re:...and I don't need Jon Katz to protect me! (Score:3)
There is a danger to generalizing "intelligence == geek == arrogance/hostility."
It teaches young new women in computers to erroneously try to fit in by swearning, being rude, being crude, calling themselves a b*tch or sl*t, thinking erroneously that arrogance/hostility == geek == fitting in == intelligence.
Little do they know "real gurus" are the gentlest nicest people in the world.
Greater knowledge == less arrogance and hostility in our field.
We don't need to erroneously educate a bunch of young girls the way to be a geek girl is to be rude and cruel and mean to other people (or be sexually self-deprecating).
It is a stereotype darn it, and a very false one at that.
P.S. kudos to another geek girl
Re:"minority" groups need to speak up... (Score:2)
All these minority groups without counting the minorities inside the white geek dominant group.
I am myself a white geek but don't share the same culture as most white geek here because I have an European culture (and more specifically a French one) and not an American one.
yup, I begin to think that their are as much minorities as their are individuals.
Re:"News for guys" (Score:2)
. It works for you and I; our responsibility doesn't extend any further than that. I'll raise my children to get over this sort of silly thing, and I expect other folks to do the same. The attitude/society that produces these sorts of things is already dying; it's nice and socially conscious of you to want to help it along with a few kicks, but it's not strictly necessary.
One of my mom's favorite proverbs is "El que se mete a Redentor muere crucificado," which translates to "Trying to be a Redeemer gets you crucified." Only took a few nasty experiences trying to help some Extremely Broken People to realize the truth behind that: the world fundamentally resents attempts to help or save it, and in general would rather be left alone.
These days, I keep my generous, charitable, and compassionate impulses for the people I love, my close friends and family. And I expect other people to turn to their close friends and family for help when they need it, and not to me.
gomi
Re:So... what color is the sky on your world? (Score:2)
But you go on thinking of yourself as a victim if it'll make you feel better. Or start packing heat. It's amazing what a suitable self-defense option can do in the face of violent jerkitude. And the beauty part is, you don't have to be gay, or even oppressed! All people are equally entitled to self-defense!
Hell, that's actually a good idea. I bet heavily arming and training the queer component of the most reactionary US states would do...interesting...things to assault stats. The thing to remember is that the violent jerks are the aberration, not the norm.
off to research Guns for Gays,
gomi
A turn of phrase (Score:2)
I tip my virtual hat to whoever it was (on Slashdot) who said something like this: The trouble with Linux is that 98% of users make the other 2% look bad.
[...] 98% seems a little high. Surely it's the other way around? I.e., that 2% of Linux users make the other 98% look bad.
I'm not sure what the original context was, but I assume it was an intentional reversal. The "2% of [X] make the other 98% look bad" expression, while insightful, is old to the point of triteness. This quote seems to be reversing it, in order to cynically argue that, while we'd like to believe that the kiddies and flamers are only a small but vocal minority among a predominantly intelligent and thoughtful group, the truth is that they comprise a larger percentage of us than we'd like to admit, and/or that, in all honesty, most of us are not so much better. (Though surely it's an exaggeration to put the intelligent ones at a vanishingly small 98:2 minority.)
This effectively invokes the old sentiment, only to deny that it applies to the case at hand. Other examples of this device that come to mind would be: "beating ploughshares into swords", "99% inspiration and 1% perspiration", "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", "Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?", etc.
David Gould
Re:...defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
I do not blindly support the status quo. I do not blindly support hidden agendas or propaganda. I do not blindly support open source.
When I post, I post my own thoughts. If someone replies and I do not see where they are coming from - I reply and ask, or provide a contrary argument.
I agree that sometimes there is too much value put into arguments converse to the flow of a story or a post. However, since anyone can reply to these comments, the integrity of the forum is not subverted.
The key word in the post that you replied to was intelligent and thoughtful. If you question the moderations as well as the posts validity, why not reply to try and nullify the argument with intelligent and thoughtful posts of your own.
Re:unfair to male and unfair to white (Score:2)
Yes, in my experience, those that knew what they were talking about did not yell or scream or grumble about not doing things their way. They intelligently explain why we should do a process their way, and we take value in their explanation.
Those that are often rigid, are also often frightened by the fact that their lack of knowledge does not allow them to modify their work flow to the needs of those around them.
I have on occasion met brilliant programmers who are unable to work in teams and are convinced that everyone around them is a complete idiot (which is often relatively true). I just take this for lack of emotional development or too much focus on a goal.
What I do not have, is respect for those that whine, and kick, and scream instead of trying to change or get both parties to partially compromise to achieve a goal. Intelligent communication is the medium in which this is done. You do not have to become passive to move away from hostility.
I'm well aware of that Slashdot item. (Score:3)
I found most of that newsletter to be just the same old starchy, pseudo-intellectual feminist clap-trap. Though the one about vibrators was interesting and funny.
Disguising your identity on Usenet is as easy as setting up your variables any way you want. I can invent an identity that is only traceable to my news server and posting machine. That identity could have an arbitrary reply-to address, full name and organization field.
Anyway, it's the young males that are often the *targets* of the said roasting, due to being boastful, stubborn and ignorant. If anything, they should be hiding their identities, for they make big asses of themselves.
At worst, the hostility may at times create an atmosphere that is perhaps discouraging to the lurkers---who are themselves not the target of the hostility. Very little is known about these lurkers, unfortunately.
In the technical newsgroups I frequent, I haven very rarely seen evidence of hostility that is specifically aimed at women or non-whites. When it did happen, I recall everyone reacted by roasting the originator.
Of course, newsgroups are very diverse. There is no comparison between comp.unix.programmer and, say, alt.tasteless.jokes.
There is all kinds of crud in all kinds of groups. Depending on what you look at, you may get a completely different impression.