I'm surprised that such a coherent, clear, comprehensive discussion of memes doesn't include a mention of _Snow Crash_ by Neal Stephenson.
SPOILER
Talk about a toxic meme. If Asherah wasn't toxic, I don't know what was. I guess the nam-shub of Enki would be the antitoxin. And the fact that there was a population that was particularly susceptible to Asherah -- namely, those who had never had to think, but rather derived spirituality from Rev. Wayne's Pearly Gates -- confirms that we need antitoxin, fast. Of course, the fact that hackers died mentally from Asherah is interesting -- who should have been LEAST susceptible?
As you may know, Segfault somewhat recently removed its comment section, because it was getting too noisy; very litlle signal. Scott James Remnant pointed out that it takes a critical mass of participants to make a/.-style moderation system work. I would add that you not only need a number of participants, you need a certain type of participant.
The moderation system on Slashdot needs MANY, MANY altruistic moderators, most of whom will rate a site objectively and try to subsume personal bias. Inculcating such a norm into people who have little personal incentive to make such a sacrifice for the community will be quite difficult. It's the tragedy of the commons, a prisoner's dilemma.
I'm revising a paper I've written involving this, by the way, so email me if you're interested.
Imagine if Hemos had misspelled that one little (okay, upper-case) letter. Slashdotters everywhere would beseige the poor NightVision people with flames accusing them of being M$ p2wn$.
That's right! I can't remember what the stations were called, but I remember it was reminiscent of Dial-A-Prayer.
I also remember that one of the points Atwood was making was the same one this artist is making -- that prayer degenerates into the meaningless repetition of stock phrases, especially in a community which harshly/strictly enforces religious doctrine/dogma.
Oh, and don't forget that the women in the Republic of Gilead could phone in (I think) prayers to be prayed for them.
Hey! I didn't expect, when I read the blurb on the front page of/., that there would be a spoiler for a perfectly good -- even classic -- SF story that I had meant to read someday. Unfair, I say.
It's standard convention -- as well as just plain common sense and kindness -- to put a "SPOILER ALERT" somewhere in front of said spoiler. I recognize that Roblimo was just tossing off an interesting tangential thought, and perhaps did not thinnk of it as a spoiler, but it was nevertheless. Please be mroe careful in the future.
On a somewhat related note, the guy who had the site about lightsabres (linked a day ago or so on/.) had the spoilers in a font color the same as the background, and directed you to highlight if and only if you wanted the spoilers. Not a bad idea for any of us who have that problem with our personal sites.
I pick up Bradbury whenever I can. I remember reading "Fahrenheit 451" and "The Martian Chronicles" when I was in middle school, and "There Will Be Soft Rains" (a short story) was in one of my high school literature anthologies.
I agree; he's one of the writers who's influenced the way I write (when I can get up the courage to write anything but papers these days), along with (don't hate me) E.B. White, Dave Barry, and Garrison Keillor. His prose is haunting; reminds me of Sherwood Anderson, what he called "low fine music" in dialogue...
Analyzing or dissecting what I find enjoyable in literature always gets me down. Sometimes I just want to read it. But sometimes it's fun, just as it was fun to talk about "Dogma" after seeing it, just as I want to understand why I find Bradbury's work interesting now that it might cheer him up when he needs it.
Then again, if I were recovering from a stroke, I might not want to hear/see people looking at my work as though it were a car -- "oh, I admire the way he put that chassis together, real professional job" -- because writing/art is different, it comes from a private place, it's difficult and brave for a person to reveal himself through writing --
So all I'll say is, hope you feel better soon, Mr. Bradbury. Good health and good luck.
I *do* believe that the open-source/free-software ideology/belief system *can* help create greater openness, open up people's minds to the possibility of cooperation.
But note: Engineers who try to apply engineering concepts to public life/human nature can be mistaken. And engineers aren't as politically involved as, say, writers, in general. There are exceptions, especially in OS/FS, but changes in engineering practices don't always affect politics.
There are exceptions, of course. The Progressives at the (last) turn of the century were Taylorists, believing in "scientific management" by professionals; note the "city manager" position, previously nonexistent. But overall, only really big movements in science/engineering have affected public life -- and that's IN THE US.
From what I know of China, economic freedom increases as political freedom stays low. But hey. Tiananmen students faxed out their protests. Xiang here can write us sorta freely. There's no way for the Chinese gov't to suppress EVERYTHING on the net....unless those top-notch Chinese coders help them...hmmmm...
Which means it IS important to get some alternative modes of thinking into their realms of possibility. GPL respect in "Red China"? I'm all for it.
I got it off the amused.com coolsig site. But there IS reference to a similar sentiment in "Lobachevsky": "In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics: Plagiarize!
Plagiarize, Let no one else's work evade your eyes, Remember why the good Lord made your eyes, So don't shade your eyes, But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize - Only be sure always to call it please 'research'."
I'm sure it's a quite popular quote. Maybe Plato said it.
Yes. This post was funny, as eer most lists/jokes about "how women/men are". And I DO appreciate that men have a tough time with women, all men, all women, especially geek men.
But I wasn't like that. I can truthfully say that I've only drooled a bit over two "poster boys" in my life. I didn't really think any of the guys at my HS looked good at all. I DID drool a bit over men who were intelligent and treated me with respect, which means a few geekish-almost guys in HS -- and three of my teachers. Now, in college, yes, I did enjoy that I got more attention, but I did NOT get drunk, EVER, and I was NOT promiscuous. I've found a man who is smart and sweet, and I'm sticking with him.
WE'RE NOT ALL LIKE THAT. I hate to bring up the "Jessica" from Roblimo's post, but we did exist, we girls who weren't like the girls in your list. And yet we fade into the background. I suppose most, MOST, of the fellas at my HS were like the girls in your list. But it doesn't have to be that way.
My sister told me that college would be my reward for getting through high school. Maybe she was right. But whether you're in HS or college, I sure hope that there is at least one person of the opposite sex who is not as asinine as the people presented in your list.
Check the Jargon File entry: "[from archaic English verb for `shudder', as with fear]"
..."The grue was originated in the game Zork (Dave Lebling took the name from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" fantasies) and used in several other Infocom games as a hint that you should perhaps look for a lamp, torch or some type of light source. Wandering into a dark area would cause the game to prompt you, "It is very dark. If you continue you are likely to be eaten by a grue." If you failed to locate a light source within the next couple of moves this would indeed be the case...."
By the way, maybe we DO need people who understand what we do -- by doing it. Intense creative people sometimes marry other intense creative people. Isaac and Janet Asimov -- an example. Others?
"Many" geek girls are unloving, inconsiderate? Many PEOPLE are like that. But most? All? The implication in the original article was that ALL geek girls are like that. Thus, criticism in the post to which you responded.
So many men are looking for a selfless handservant, who doesn't take, only gives. Point: Those women will BORE YOU given time. Sure, I give, but I also take. And I can take it if he spends a majority of his life at the computer, but I'll yell at him if it means he's neglecting me.
The "evaluation via nude appearance" thing is satirical; I won't bother.
The "women"/"girls" problem: the atuthor of the article used these referents, which may imply that he sees the women you can't get as mature and the girls you can get as immature, not yet fully females, etc.
Dumping an woman who finds you unattractive...how do you know she does? And wouldn't this be related more to other problems? And why would she be with you if she didn't want to?
Maybe Robin's personal preference IS to act nice to geek girls in case they grow nice breasts. But are these words to live by...for all of us? Or just for him? If it's just for him, then why is he telling us to do it? And if it's for "us," then what's a female geek to do "I must, I must, I must increase my bust"? (Oh, by the way, you may notice that the girl, Jessica, whom he wished he'd gotten, was a geek. Breaking Rule #!, Robin! None of them uppity geek chix!)
No. Nobody's perfect. But the author of the post to which you responded was pointing out the hypocrisy/contradiction among the implications of the pieces of advice in the article.
The "void" thing -- no judgments here. Some people are happy alone, some aren't, some are dependent on others for happiness, or so they believe. Men, women, all of us. But Uncle Robin's advice simply feeds/buys into the stereotype that women are like this, that we need men for happiness.
And yes, we can ignore his advice. And we should, some of it, because IT'S BAD ADVICE. Sure, some of it's good, some of it's bad. Many of the critics here have acknowledged and praised the good advice in the article. What's wrong with criticism? One post may criticize, another may praise, even by the same poster. It has a valid place in Slashdot discussions, in any discussion.
Thank you for a clearer sum-up of the clueless and/or offensive and/or sexist aspects of this particular article than I was able to provide. By the way, the endless comparisons of women and computers/software were really asinine. Fancy box? Not open-source? Please.
Okay, much of the advice is good. Be straightforward. Don't try to be something you're not. Don't be a jerk, even if you're interacting with a dork. Be careful about looking for (a) a mirror image of yourself or (2) the Human Barbie or (iii) trying to make her into something she's not, i.e., changing her instead of appreciating how she is.
But I have problems when "Uncle Robin" excludes entire female populations from consideration. When he says, no geek girls, and don't think too much about the really pretty ones either, isn't he going against the whole idea of considering people on their own merits, as opposed to group affiliation? Granted, "pretty" girls who spend a lot of time on their outsides sometimes, maybe often, have rotten insides. But how is it that a geek girl "competes" in an unhealthful way? Don't you want someone who can UNDERSTAND when you're talking about a problem at the office/boxen/latest Linux convention? Or would you rather have a very nice girl, who is clueless when it comes to what you DO 80 hours a week, fix you some cookies and run a nice hot bath?
I mean, come ON. I'm a (pseudo)geek girl. I have a geek man. We get along famously. If anything, I'm MORE accepting of his computer obssession because I share some of it. A woman who doesn't Get It may not Get You.
Just, all I'm saying is, don't just banish us from consideration with a flick of the finger because we're too much like you, or might compete for...for what?
Yeah, it's pretty crowded. There's definitely a weeder mentality in the lower division courses, from what I hear from my CS friends. But at least if you decide EE/CS isn't what you want to do, or if you don't get in to the college or the major, you can do something else that isn't bad. That is, I took Intro to CS, hated it, but now I can major in practically anything and be assured that I'll get a good education, learn to think, etc.
There's a reason it's crowded, which is that many people want it, and the reason they want it is because it's good.
I agree that one should be careful about going to a highly specifically focused and expensive school, such as MIT. And yes, some people flourish in small schools, some in big ones.
But...
Going to a large and prestigious school, such as UC Berkeley (Ok, I'm a little biased), will help you out in that there *will* be strong faculty in all departments. I switched my prospective major from CS to English to Political Science, and I know that even if I go to something "weak" like Mass Communications, I will get a good education.
Because half of education happens outside the classroom. At Berkeley, I interact with other students who *are* as smart as I am. (This is new.) And opportunities for interesting stuff abound. Lectures (Linus came by last year), extracurriculars (International Socialists, Anime, all sorts of stuff), cool people (I lived in the same dorm as Seth Schoen of CalLUG), etc. Big, more of a lot of stuff.
Yeah, there isn't as much personal interaction with faculty....unless you work for it. Here, I have the option of being anonymous if I wanted it. If I want interaction, I can have it -- office hours, undergrad research opportunities, etc. I visited a small school, admittedly atypical Reed in Portland, Oregon. Too cloistered. Everyone seemed alike. The diversity here, in ideologies, worldviews, backgrounds, interests, strengths, and, yes, ethnicity/gender/sexualities, is astounding.
Because I go to Berkeley, I have more options. After discovering I loathed my intro-to-CS class, I *could* switch. Not all four-year schools are like that. If you're thinking about a school whose one great thing is CS, even if you've been programming since you were 7, think twice. There's a reason that people say "well-rounded" so often. There's a reason for the cliche.
While this exchange seems childish, it makes the leaders real. They are posting slashdot comments in the same forum as me. Using the same input box. Comments that are read by the same people that can read mine.
I feel the same way. To some extent, it's like that weird dream I had the other night where RMS came to my computer lab at UCB. It was a celeb. factor -- hey, lookie, he used that exact same keyboard as I'm gonna use! But it also does what you talk about below:
I feel so empowered and lucky to be living in a time when my opinions can be read by the people who make a difference. A huge part of that is my ability to read their uncensored, heat of the moment comments.
This type of intercourse -- free, honest -- is a happy, natural side effect of the culture that drew me to the open-source movement in the first place. I love it.
Y'know, FSM used to stand for Free Speech Movement (yes, I go to UC Berkeley). Now there are those who use it for free software? Sure, there are some -- okay, many -- similarities in the two campaigns, but using "FSM" might confuse people.
And that's just it. Anyone who says anything is trying to communicate something. Using "FSM" might confuse people if you're talking to them for the first time about free/open-source software. They might think you're going back to 1963, Mario Savio, Sproul Plaza, Telegraph, Black Panthers, etc.....while you're just trying to talk about Linux.
Taking care that you speak precisely is much like taking care that there are no random bits floating around on your Net connection. There are some types of speech that interfere with the exchange of information. One is flaming. Another is slander. Another is falsehood -- malicious, reckless, or unintentional.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
I agree that we are all individuals, and that there is and should be no corporate-style stifling of free speech, especially here. What I attempt to point out is simply this: self-restraint in speech of any sort is wholly pragmatic. This is the type of restraint that makes you cool down before blowing up at your child/boss/driver in front of you who cuts you off. (I hope we haven't lost it already, through general decline in civility or through the lowering threshold of speech on the Net.) This self-restraint makes you search for the correct word to explain your meaning most precisely. Ah, but you might say, that isn't self-restraint, it's a passion for precision. My point exactly; the passion for precision in language makes us say what we mean, which is, inevitably, our version of the truth, undistorted by the irrelevancies.
And, in a civilized society, full of free, autonomous individuals, it is that self-restraint, that passion for the Good Thing, that makes all others unnecessary.
Er, I don't think you're gonna get flamed for insulting ESR. If anything, I think you're gonna get flamed for seeming clueless. At the moment, thousands of/. readers, like myself, are rereading ESR's last comment for any hint of offense.
First: offense is something the offendee feels. In some cases, it is unfair to blame the offender for a statement/action that feels offensive; perhaps the offendee is not allowing customary liberties to the offender. Thus the backlash against "Poltical Correctness"; if person A says something inoffensive by community standards, but person B has unusual standards, person B might be offended, but person A did not offend person B.
Second: I saw NOTHING offensive, by reasonable standards, in ESR's last response there. It was, as others have noted, a flippant response to a silly question.
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
Er, I've read most, if not all, of ESR's Linux advocacy. And I can count on negative fingers the number of times he's mentioned sex, his penis, Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified, etc. The one mention of anything even remotely sexual I can recall is in one of his personal, non-Linux-related writings on his website. It was about his trip to Japan. To say that he can't keep his penis out of Linux evangelism is just SO WRONG! It's slanderous, both in the sense of falsehood and in the sense of malice. I think most of this community would agree that you have grossly misinterpreted any connotation ESR implied, and that you have applied a bizarrely high standard to the ordinary chaos of/. discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
SPOILER
Talk about a toxic meme. If Asherah wasn't toxic, I don't know what was. I guess the nam-shub of Enki would be the antitoxin. And the fact that there was a population that was particularly susceptible to Asherah -- namely, those who had never had to think, but rather derived spirituality from Rev. Wayne's Pearly Gates -- confirms that we need antitoxin, fast. Of course, the fact that hackers died mentally from Asherah is interesting -- who should have been LEAST susceptible?
The moderation system on Slashdot needs MANY, MANY altruistic moderators, most of whom will rate a site objectively and try to subsume personal bias. Inculcating such a norm into people who have little personal incentive to make such a sacrifice for the community will be quite difficult. It's the tragedy of the commons, a prisoner's dilemma.
I'm revising a paper I've written involving this, by the way, so email me if you're interested.
Just a Scrabble-oriented kind of gal,
Sumana
I also remember that one of the points Atwood was making was the same one this artist is making -- that prayer degenerates into the meaningless repetition of stock phrases, especially in a community which harshly/strictly enforces religious doctrine/dogma.
Oh, and don't forget that the women in the Republic of Gilead could phone in (I think) prayers to be prayed for them.
It's standard convention -- as well as just plain common sense and kindness -- to put a "SPOILER ALERT" somewhere in front of said spoiler. I recognize that Roblimo was just tossing off an interesting tangential thought, and perhaps did not thinnk of it as a spoiler, but it was nevertheless. Please be mroe careful in the future.
On a somewhat related note, the guy who had the site about lightsabres (linked a day ago or so on /.) had the spoilers in a font color the same as the background, and directed you to highlight if and only if you wanted the spoilers. Not a bad idea for any of us who have that problem with our personal sites.
I agree; he's one of the writers who's influenced the way I write (when I can get up the courage to write anything but papers these days), along with (don't hate me) E.B. White, Dave Barry, and Garrison Keillor. His prose is haunting; reminds me of Sherwood Anderson, what he called "low fine music" in dialogue...
Analyzing or dissecting what I find enjoyable in literature always gets me down. Sometimes I just want to read it. But sometimes it's fun, just as it was fun to talk about "Dogma" after seeing it, just as I want to understand why I find Bradbury's work interesting now that it might cheer him up when he needs it.
Then again, if I were recovering from a stroke, I might not want to hear/see people looking at my work as though it were a car -- "oh, I admire the way he put that chassis together, real professional job" -- because writing/art is different, it comes from a private place, it's difficult and brave for a person to reveal himself through writing --
So all I'll say is, hope you feel better soon, Mr. Bradbury. Good health and good luck.
But note: Engineers who try to apply engineering concepts to public life/human nature can be mistaken. And engineers aren't as politically involved as, say, writers, in general. There are exceptions, especially in OS/FS, but changes in engineering practices don't always affect politics.
There are exceptions, of course. The Progressives at the (last) turn of the century were Taylorists, believing in "scientific management" by professionals; note the "city manager" position, previously nonexistent. But overall, only really big movements in science/engineering have affected public life -- and that's IN THE US.
From what I know of China, economic freedom increases as political freedom stays low. But hey. Tiananmen students faxed out their protests. Xiang here can write us sorta freely. There's no way for the Chinese gov't to suppress EVERYTHING on the net....unless those top-notch Chinese coders help them...hmmmm...
Which means it IS important to get some alternative modes of thinking into their realms of possibility. GPL respect in "Red China"? I'm all for it.
Plagiarize!
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'."
I'm sure it's a quite popular quote. Maybe Plato said it.
But I wasn't like that. I can truthfully say that I've only drooled a bit over two "poster boys" in my life. I didn't really think any of the guys at my HS looked good at all. I DID drool a bit over men who were intelligent and treated me with respect, which means a few geekish-almost guys in HS -- and three of my teachers. Now, in college, yes, I did enjoy that I got more attention, but I did NOT get drunk, EVER, and I was NOT promiscuous. I've found a man who is smart and sweet, and I'm sticking with him.
WE'RE NOT ALL LIKE THAT. I hate to bring up the "Jessica" from Roblimo's post, but we did exist, we girls who weren't like the girls in your list. And yet we fade into the background.
I suppose most, MOST, of the fellas at my HS were like the girls in your list. But it doesn't have to be that way.
My sister told me that college would be my reward for getting through high school. Maybe she was right. But whether you're in HS or college, I sure hope that there is at least one person of the opposite sex who is not as asinine as the people presented in your list.
You're right. I should have seen that that was what he was doing.
Still, the objectification implications were kinda rude.
You're right. I was wrong. That probably was what he was doing. That was kinda stupid of me. ;-)
Humor driver.
Check the Jargon File entry: "[from archaic English verb for `shudder', as with fear]"
..."The grue was originated in the game Zork (Dave Lebling took the name from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" fantasies) and used in several other Infocom games as a hint that you should perhaps look for a lamp, torch or some type of light source. Wandering into a dark area would cause the game to prompt you, "It is very dark. If you continue you are likely to be eaten by a grue." If you failed to locate a light source within the next couple of moves this would indeed be the case. ..."
"Many" geek girls are unloving, inconsiderate? Many PEOPLE are like that. But most? All? The implication in the original article was that ALL geek girls are like that. Thus, criticism in the post to which you responded.
So many men are looking for a selfless handservant, who doesn't take, only gives. Point: Those women will BORE YOU given time. Sure, I give, but I also take. And I can take it if he spends a majority of his life at the computer, but I'll yell at him if it means he's neglecting me.
The "evaluation via nude appearance" thing is satirical; I won't bother.
The "women"/"girls" problem: the atuthor of the article used these referents, which may imply that he sees the women you can't get as mature and the girls you can get as immature, not yet fully females, etc.
Dumping an woman who finds you unattractive...how do you know she does? And wouldn't this be related more to other problems? And why would she be with you if she didn't want to?
Maybe Robin's personal preference IS to act nice to geek girls in case they grow nice breasts. But are these words to live by...for all of us? Or just for him? If it's just for him, then why is he telling us to do it? And if it's for "us," then what's a female geek to do "I must, I must, I must increase my bust"? (Oh, by the way, you may notice that the girl, Jessica, whom he wished he'd gotten, was a geek. Breaking Rule #!, Robin! None of them uppity geek chix!)
No. Nobody's perfect. But the author of the post to which you responded was pointing out the hypocrisy/contradiction among the implications of the pieces of advice in the article.
The "void" thing -- no judgments here. Some people are happy alone, some aren't, some are dependent on others for happiness, or so they believe. Men, women, all of us. But Uncle Robin's advice simply feeds/buys into the stereotype that women are like this, that we need men for happiness.
And yes, we can ignore his advice. And we should, some of it, because IT'S BAD ADVICE. Sure, some of it's good, some of it's bad. Many of the critics here have acknowledged and praised the good advice in the article. What's wrong with criticism? One post may criticize, another may praise, even by the same poster. It has a valid place in Slashdot discussions, in any discussion.
By the way, the endless comparisons of women and computers/software were really asinine. Fancy box? Not open-source? Please.
But I have problems when "Uncle Robin" excludes entire female populations from consideration. When he says, no geek girls, and don't think too much about the really pretty ones either, isn't he going against the whole idea of considering people on their own merits, as opposed to group affiliation? Granted, "pretty" girls who spend a lot of time on their outsides sometimes, maybe often, have rotten insides. But how is it that a geek girl "competes" in an unhealthful way? Don't you want someone who can UNDERSTAND when you're talking about a problem at the office/boxen/latest Linux convention? Or would you rather have a very nice girl, who is clueless when it comes to what you DO 80 hours a week, fix you some cookies and run a nice hot bath?
I mean, come ON. I'm a (pseudo)geek girl. I have a geek man. We get along famously. If anything, I'm MORE accepting of his computer obssession because I share some of it. A woman who doesn't Get It may not Get You.
Just, all I'm saying is, don't just banish us from consideration with a flick of the finger because we're too much like you, or might compete for...for what?
No, I'm not majoring in CS, but I COULD!
There's a reason it's crowded, which is that many people want it, and the reason they want it is because it's good.
But...
Going to a large and prestigious school, such as UC Berkeley (Ok, I'm a little biased), will help you out in that there *will* be strong faculty in all departments. I switched my prospective major from CS to English to Political Science, and I know that even if I go to something "weak" like Mass Communications, I will get a good education.
Because half of education happens outside the classroom. At Berkeley, I interact with other students who *are* as smart as I am. (This is new.) And opportunities for interesting stuff abound. Lectures (Linus came by last year), extracurriculars (International Socialists, Anime, all sorts of stuff), cool people (I lived in the same dorm as Seth Schoen of CalLUG), etc. Big, more of a lot of stuff.
Yeah, there isn't as much personal interaction with faculty....unless you work for it. Here, I have the option of being anonymous if I wanted it. If I want interaction, I can have it -- office hours, undergrad research opportunities, etc. I visited a small school, admittedly atypical Reed in Portland, Oregon. Too cloistered. Everyone seemed alike. The diversity here, in ideologies, worldviews, backgrounds, interests, strengths, and, yes, ethnicity/gender/sexualities, is astounding.
Because I go to Berkeley, I have more options. After discovering I loathed my intro-to-CS class, I *could* switch. Not all four-year schools are like that. If you're thinking about a school whose one great thing is CS, even if you've been programming since you were 7, think twice. There's a reason that people say "well-rounded" so often. There's a reason for the cliche.
They are posting slashdot comments in the same forum as me. Using the same input box. Comments that are read by the same people that can read mine.
I feel the same way. To some extent, it's like that weird dream I had the other night where RMS came to my computer lab at UCB. It was a celeb. factor -- hey, lookie, he used that exact same keyboard as I'm gonna use! But it also does what you talk about below:
I feel so empowered and lucky to be living in a time when my opinions can be read by the people who make a difference. A huge part of that is my ability to read their uncensored, heat of the moment comments.
This type of intercourse -- free, honest -- is a happy, natural side effect of the culture that drew me to the open-source movement in the first place. I love it.
And it's not just a time, it's a place. Slashdot.
Y'know, FSM used to stand for Free Speech Movement (yes, I go to UC Berkeley). Now there are those who use it for free software? Sure, there are some -- okay, many -- similarities in the two campaigns, but using "FSM" might confuse people.
And that's just it. Anyone who says anything is trying to communicate something. Using "FSM" might confuse people if you're talking to them for the first time about free/open-source software. They might think you're going back to 1963, Mario Savio, Sproul Plaza, Telegraph, Black Panthers, etc.....while you're just trying to talk about Linux.
Taking care that you speak precisely is much like taking care that there are no random bits floating around on your Net connection. There are some types of speech that interfere with the exchange of information. One is flaming. Another is slander. Another is falsehood -- malicious, reckless, or unintentional.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
I agree that we are all individuals, and that there is and should be no corporate-style stifling of free speech, especially here. What I attempt to point out is simply this: self-restraint in speech of any sort is wholly pragmatic. This is the type of restraint that makes you cool down before blowing up at your child/boss/driver in front of you who cuts you off. (I hope we haven't lost it already, through general decline in civility or through the lowering threshold of speech on the Net.) This self-restraint makes you search for the correct word to explain your meaning most precisely. Ah, but you might say, that isn't self-restraint, it's a passion for precision. My point exactly; the passion for precision in language makes us say what we mean, which is, inevitably, our version of the truth, undistorted by the irrelevancies.
And, in a civilized society, full of free, autonomous individuals, it is that self-restraint, that passion for the Good Thing, that makes all others unnecessary.
Er, I don't think you're gonna get flamed for insulting ESR. If anything, I think you're gonna get flamed for seeming clueless. At the moment, thousands of /. readers, like myself, are rereading ESR's last comment for any hint of offense.
/. discussion.
First: offense is something the offendee feels. In some cases, it is unfair to blame the offender for a statement/action that feels offensive; perhaps the offendee is not allowing customary liberties to the offender. Thus the backlash against "Poltical Correctness"; if person A says something inoffensive by community standards, but person B has unusual standards, person B might be offended, but person A did not offend person B.
Second: I saw NOTHING offensive, by reasonable standards, in ESR's last response there. It was, as others have noted, a flippant response to a silly question.
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
Er, I've read most, if not all, of ESR's Linux advocacy. And I can count on negative fingers the number of times he's mentioned sex, his penis, Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified, etc. The one mention of anything even remotely sexual I can recall is in one of his personal, non-Linux-related writings on his website. It was about his trip to Japan. To say that he can't keep his penis out of Linux evangelism is just SO WRONG! It's slanderous, both in the sense of falsehood and in the sense of malice. I think most of this community would agree that you have grossly misinterpreted any connotation ESR implied, and that you have applied a bizarrely high standard to the ordinary chaos of