So you're saying his response to those people is "your feelings are valid, I understand why you are offended by my comments" or is it closer to "your feelings are dumb--you're only mad because you didn't think about what I said?"
(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).
I posted this only on it's own merits. I'll admit he's abrasive (as the rest of that thread, and the one you linked to, shows), but he does make a few solid points amongst the vitriol.
You all are involved in like a 100 comment thread about his tone rather than the content, so that should maybe suggest that he didn’t get his point across well.
I think he triggered some people because they know he is right, he has lived both sides unlike your common gaming addict with no real breaks in their activity for years.
(I see "it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve" as provocation.)
Well, for one thing, are you asserting that it's not self-evident that he was incensed? It's pretty evident that he is. If the gentleman is indeed in a state of cognitive distortion driven by hate and groupthink, it could be useful to point it out to him. Getting him to at least the point where he acknowledges his hate, then has to justify having that hate is a step in the right direction.
Also, pointing such out for 3rd party readers may be beneficial for related reasons. He has at least admitted openly that he is in a state of anger and is in the process of justifying why he is right to be ruled by this mindstate.
I’m not sure which is more bitter, the original article or its response. If you’re going to disagree with someone, actually address the points he makes. Attacking him personally is petty and isn’t conducive to real discussion. Peter's feelings aren't necessarily without merit--why not discuss them?
I wish people would stop mischaracterizing statements to push an agenda. Nowhere did he "fly off the handle". If you are so sensitive that his statement felt that harsh, perhaps the internet is not the place for you. Or toughen up for pete's sake.
That's a good point as well. I think his point is that he could trigger people into downvoting or replying to his post regardless of whether those folks fully read or understood his post or the linked material. Several of the comments certainly demonstrate that to be the case.
We'll have to agree to disagree in that our initial perspectives are far too different, with the exception of:
"Except it's not, because I wasn't attacking anybody."
And in that case I was wrong not to point out he got huge heat from many people way back when that issue was new, like a year or two ago; was not trying to imply its solely you. This also applies to the Plato's cave dramatization where of his zillions of detractors, your particular example was not as severe as the majority of those who disagree with him. At least intended to comment more on the history and social phenomena of the relatively sever backlash as actually originally happened at that time rather than on your comments at this time.
> To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise
No this is exactly what I think. I think it is valid for people to air the grievances. I think the difference here is that you are skeptical of the validity if their complaints. If I am right, this is a pretty fundamental difference in world view that I doubt can be reconciled on a HN thread at this point unless you disagree
reply