
Let Me Ruin This for You: The Schadenfreude of Criticism - pepys
https://thesmartset.com/let-me-ruin-this-for-you/
======
galaxyLogic
>disinterested critical discourse is really just a willful schadenfreude?

I think the writer has misunderstood the word "schadenfreude". He seems to
understand it as "joy you get from hurting somebody else".

I always understood SchadenFreude to mean "the joy you get from somebody
else's loss or other misfortune" \- with no active participation by you in
causing it.

~~~
cavanasm
Yeah, joy from inflicting harm is sadism. Author probably just wanted to use
the word schadenfreude. It's a really fun word.

~~~
toyg
German has some awesome words: glockenspiel, gesundheit, blitz, panzer...

~~~
donjoe
In German, you can combine a bunch of words to create a new one.

Feel free to read the full explanation on a pretty awesome example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizit%C3%A4tenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft)

~~~
walshemj
I have used this to test a business directory to check how it handles long
company names.

~~~
walshemj
I also used the famous long welsh place name to test addresses with :-)
"Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"

------
ivanhoe
There's no discussion possible without the confrontation of ideas, which means
that criticism is vital for any progress. And also getting seriously hurt by
criticism might be a warning sign that one's having some deeper ego issues. No
one likes it, but grownups are supposed to be able to cope with the fact that
others don't share your ideas... either by re-evaluating your own views, or by
ignoring others'.

~~~
dahart
> There's no discussion possible without the confrontation of ideas

I agree. Ha! ;)

This borders on suggesting that all criticism is good and altruistic and
beneficial to society. I think the vast majority of all criticism is ego
driven, motivated by wanting to feel superior. Most of it doesn't produce
progress or discussion. When it's hurtful, it's usually because it was
intended to be hurtful which means it's more than critique.

> grownups are supposed to be able to cope with the fact that others don't
> share your ideas

There's a difference between evaluating ideas and looking only for faults.
There's a difference between critique and criticism. It sounds like you are
talking mostly about critique, except for this part about being grownups.
While your statement is true, it's only half. Grownups also critique without
criticizing, they can evaluate something without putting others down, without
insulting or being mean.

[http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html](http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html)

------
manmal
The author is essentially saying that criticism is a tool to hurt others. I
find this idea interesting, and worthwhile to think about. A question I now
have is, in this theory, who does one want to hurt exactly? Is it always the
subject of my scorn I want to hurt with criticism, or is it more complicated
than that - if I rant about Java on Twitter (I don’t do Java dev anymore), who
do I want to hurt? Java devs? Oracle? All programmers? Or just myself? Or the
population in general?

~~~
indigochill
While I think there are critics who attempt to provide a balanced critique, I
know I have provided criticism with the intent to harm. The reason is one of
self-defense of a sort.

For example, I'm proposing a fraud detection system of my own design to
address tricky issues in our product. Higher-ups want to purchase an existing
system from a third party, which means I don't get to work on my pet project.
They ask me for my input. At this point, my primary interest is in exposing
all the flaws in their proposed system which render it unfit for purpose. I'll
probably acknowledge some strengths just to make my argument more tolerable to
them, but my goal is to persuade them to take my preferred course of action.

Likewise, if I rant about Java, it's probably because I would like to take
some of the "mindshare" Java enjoys and move it to my favored language(s).

There are probably other reasons to want to damage something through
criticism, but that's how I find myself employing it.

~~~
zerokernel
A piece of well-built criticism can be a great tool in corporate politics. It
can completely destroy the chances of some proposal/project/person to succeed.
Ideally without appearing to be personally oppossed. As usual, most people are
(luckily?) not very good at crafting criticism and end up with a blunt and
obvious argument which backfires frequently.

------
swsieber
There is a sermon I love, that talks about dealing with ambiguity, and in it
is defined 3 levels of dealing with ambiguity, the second mirrors the claims
made in the article. I'm just going to leave a big quote because it explains
it so well:

 _The English writer G. K. Chesterton once addressed questions similar to
those I have raised today. He distinguished among “optimists,” “pessimists,”
and “improvers,” as he called them, which roughly correspond to my three
levels of dealing with ambiguity. He concluded that both the optimists and the
pessimists looked too much at only one side of things, and observed that
neither of them can be of much help in improving the human condition, because
people cannot solve problems unless they are willing both to acknowledge that
a problem exists and yet retain enough genuine loyalty to do something about
it.

More specifically, Chesterton wrote that the evil of the excessive optimist
(level one) is that he will:

"defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, “My
cosmos, right or wrong.” He will be less inclined to the reform of things;
more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks,
soothing everyone with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash
the world."

On the other hand, the evil of the pessimist (level two), wrote Chesterton,
is:

"not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he
chastises ... [In being the so-called ‘candid friend,’ the pessimist is not
really candid.] He is keeping something back—in his own gloomy pleasure in
saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help.
. . . He is using the ugly knowledge which was allowed him [in order] to
strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it."_

(The reference to the army, I think, is talking about "God's army"
(informally, e.g. the "believers"), as this is in a religious context)

------
hashkb
I am a massive fan of the band Phish. There is no band better than the worst
Phish performance. I believe this.

Phish isn't what it used to be. This is objective; there are more wrong notes
and the songs are performed more slowly, some of the really technical stuff
barely gets performed anymore. I am harshly critical of this because I know
what the band is capable of.

You wouldn't (maybe you would) believe how other fans react to my criticism.
Outright denial plus I'm obviously there to ruin it for them. It's a childish
reaction. Don't like criticism of your favorite things? Wear earplugs.

~~~
beat
I feel your pain. I was a Deadhead back in the day, and a lot of, well,
shallow Deadheads couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that some shows
were better than others, and some eras were better than others. Mid-late 1980s
Grateful Dead performances could be mighty disappointing. (Although lately,
I'm coming to appreciate the good ones.)

------
skate22
"But all critics think they’re doing the world a favor. If they didn’t believe
this delusion, criticism wouldn’t get written."

I disagree, some people just like to burst bubbles. I think it makes them feel
better.

~~~
liberte82
The world needs pessimists as much as it needs optimists.

~~~
skate22
I do not agree. Nothing wrong with a person who sees the glass half full if
that person knows that 50% of the glass is occupied. Optimists can still keep
it real.

------
jancsika
Doesn't this ignore criticism that provides specific examples for the claim
being made?

For example, I remember there was an essay by Achebe on "Heart of Darkness"
where one of his arguments was the racism of the author affected the quality
of the prose: "'A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving
long black arms...' as though we might expect a black figure striding along on
black legs to wave white arms!"

------
richmarr
Cached text version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:67fL4MZ...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:67fL4MZRMDsJ:https://thesmartset.com/let-
me-ruin-this-for-you/&num=1&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

------
JepZ
\- Schadenfreude

\- Kindergarten

\- Doppelgänger

Was just about to ask if anybody knows more German words used by the English
language, but then I googled and found this page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_German_expressions_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_German_expressions_in_English)

------
meuk
I can't draw a sharp line between cultural and personal criticism.

As an example, I find certain genres of modern music distasteful for their
lack of harmony and musical value. I can't really tell if this is cultural or
personal criticism. Is this essentially the point that the author is making?

~~~
beat
I deal with this personally by arguing that artistic merit is effectively
objective - that whether a work of art is "good" or "bad" is independent of
personal tastes. There are lots of good works of art that I simply don't like
(and frankly, lots of bad art that I love).

This is mostly as a counter to the common-as-dirt conceit of "I don't like
this, therefore it sucks" that is many people's loud response to stuff that
happens outside their own culture.

------
WillReplyfFood
Ideas have a life of theire own- and to use logic and other sharp tools to end
that- to hunt down bad ideas, to watch them in the snow of noise, wriggling,
theire entrails out, the justifications spasming one more time, to watch the
last rasping breath roaking "it must be true, for i desired it" and thus
invaliditing its existance. That is not Schadenfreude, its the joy of a
predator, killing of what not should have been alive in the first place. If it
where not for this hunt- we would still be bringing young sheeps to the cliff,
to sacrifice them for good weather.

If your ideology of choice is regularly murdered- have you ever considered,
though it feels right, it might simply be wrong in assumption and execution -
superstition- and thus eternal food for the wulfes of this world? That a
rethinkinking and updating might spare you needless pain? That all those
battles you fight and loose every time - trying to bend reality to shape,
might be wasted life time, that could be used otherwise- not if the critiques
go away, but if the flaws go away?

------
simooooo
Let me ruin this for YOU by making this site incredibly slow

~~~
monocasa
Not every site is equipped to handle HN.

------
bornonline1
critisism is just an evaluation of the use of time/money/work. That is, if we
care.

