I don't necessarily disagree but good lord XKCD got awful preachy?? If you're so damn smart and witty and above the fray of petty bickerings, then you shouldn't feel compelled to lecture the bottom-feeders of the internet as such, unless you're self-important and feel as if you have a "duty" from your public soapbox to "put these people on notice" or whatever.
I think that xkcd was about overreacting to someone being wrong on the internet, and was making fun of the people who (all of us at times) start flaming with extreme prejudice when they see it.
I am proud that I still feel a bit of shame when I catch myself doing that, and glad that I haven't been able to rationalize it as a excess that I deserve because I am so awesome.
Instead, I try not to talk to idiots, unless they're in my way or about to get in my way, and then I sprinkle sugar all over what I'm about to say as if I was talking to a child. It's important for me to remember that I'm trying to advance my own goals, rather than make someone feel stupid. This applies even when I am speaking to the stupid.
I don't see anything wrong with the "mean-spirited" humor in the XKCD comic. The cartoon is funny. It's supposed to be a joke. Anyways, it's not like those remarks are directed at anyone in particular -- just a fictional stick figure. I don't have any ethical qualms about laughing at his expense.
While from this thread alone this may look like slashdot, the community happens to put a much higher emphasis on _conversation_ rather than praising an individuals wit.
At the risk of being down modded myself for not contributing to the thread I just thought it might be worth pointing that out and reminding those that seem to have voted on this particular thread as though the emphasis was on humour.
I'm not exactly one to throw the first stone, as my karma/comments/submissions are far from exemplary, but I do try to stay in keeping with the ideals of the community.
My criticism is not of the comic itself (which is obviously very relevant and a legitimate concern), it's of the glib way the commenter I was replying to simply dropped a link to it as their only input on the conversation.
Right. Because rest of the comments in this subthread are clearly much better, very thoughtful, substantive and non-generic.
Sigh, fine, I get the point; I'll delete the comment. Sorry. You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Even if it was a joke it's always a bad idea to post anything even remotely controversial on the Internet, especially if it can be in any way construed that you might disagree with the hive mind of the site you're posting to. Thank you for the reminder before it turned into a potential flamewar.
Someone already explained a couple of times but let me chime in as well: I think opinions like yours (cracking down at completely innocent humor) is destroying to online culture.
Remember: we are a lot of different people here and if we should all judge each another based on our own backgrounds the noise level would likely increase to a level where most sane people left.
Lighten up. Humor has its place. Are you not sure that these actions might serve the public to be more critical of what they read online, thereby doing them a great service?
Scott Adams became world famous writing a cartoon full of snark and satire. These are perfectly valid ways of communicating and in fact they make up a significant chunk of human communication.
Reading comments like yours is somewhat bewildering to me. It seems like you're pushing philistinism as a virtue.
that's just your online bubble where loud complaints that substitute for intelligent discourse go. if you think it's funny you don't have a reason to go online and say only that
I'm sure you thought it was very funny but as the person who has to deal with the messes such comments provoke in large internet communities, I read the guidelines differently.
Please err on the side of posting civilly and substantively when commenting here.
My point is that making fun of something you don't like, however light the fun is, is not a good faith technique. Now, that Doesn't mean bad faith discourse can't be hilarious, Conrad Barski had made that same joke quite well in his comics.
It's just hard to make it the start of a honest discussion on the topic.
Well, that's because it might just be sarcastic criticism. As a joke, it is obvious. That does not mean that it is obvious that this was a joke. Which is exactly why we should do without them. It removes exactly the pointless discussion it has led to.
There's a big difference between humor-as-end (reddit) and humor-as-means (HN, ideally). I'm the first to complain when HN feels like reddit, but I found the comment insightful and incisive.
Their use of irony to make their point wasn't at all antithetical to the serious, intellectual discussions you're asking for.
Pedantry, on the other hand, is much more likely to prohibit meaningful discussion.
Sorry, I thought the catchy humor at the end would put it in different terms, but I agree it was unnecessary, and wish I hadn't done that.
At the same time, I think, if the joke at the end didn't raise it to the level of flamewar, directing "haughty" and "middlebrow" at another poster would progress more in that direction.
You are the one who is judging others. There is just an (implicit) rule that there are better places for humor than here and that it's better in the long run for everybody to keep discussions on topic. So yes, as for every other rules, it's sometimes annoying but there is no reason to be so upset about this.
The problem with humor is when people trying to have an actual discussion are overwhelmed by people just posting tired slashdot cliches. Look at reddit...there are great comments there, but they're usually buried by pages of people snarking on the top comment. After a while, people stop trying. If you think you have a witty remark that doesn't really feed discussion, it's probably better to let it go, or to flesh it out with something more substantial.
Not responding to something like that for 24 hours (or even just ten minutes) is a great idea. Off-the-cuff reactions are often pretty defensive. If you have an articulate counter-argument, that's different, of course.
Also, as a general rule, it's probably worth trying to avoid being snide. In purely written conversations, it's easy enough to read criticism into comments that are just too terse, and you're responding to another person, not a text box. Be respectful, regardless of how you feel about their ideas. (I tend to edit my comments quite a bit. Often, on re-reading, I realize that my attempt at being concise made me sound like a dick instead.)
reply