Lastly, why exactly was my original post killed? What happened to it? I may not understand HN fully, but I thought something that fostered a good discussion would be kept. I can't even find the post anymore! Would it have stayed up if I had said I was 16?
The only issue I really take with the "I'm 14 and check out my first [x]," is that some of them feel a little suspect. Hell, I stumbled upon one of the "I'm 15 and.." guys astroturfing his thread. He neglected to change accounts, and so he gave a glowing review about how great the game was, and how awesome the it is that he's doing this at his age... all from the same account he used to post the link. When I pointed this out to him, everything was quickly deleted.
Maybe I'm letting one bad apple spoil everything, but I feel that some percentage of the "I'm young, check out this really mediocre, yet ad supported thing I made" are in fact, just some older guy's weekend passive income experiment.
On a tech centered website such as Hacker News, it seems a perfectly reasonable position to ask someone not to rely on an emotional manipulation to get page views.
"On a tech centered website such as Hacker News, it seems a perfectly reasonable position to ask someone not to appeal to emotion in an attempt to garner page views and/or karma"
This is bordering on deliberate obtuseness. This is not a matter of appealing to emotion. This appealing to experience and asking for guidance during a fragile period of development.
In a "tech-centered" community, we should do our best to nurture young people who want to follow in our footsteps. I simply have no respect for anyone who can't see the value in that. It's the worst kind of childish, self-centered worldview.
>I simply have no respect for anyone who can't see the value in that. It's the worst kind of childish, self-centered worldview.
I stand by my original statement of your tendency toward hyperbole.
It's fine that you feel the need to be all high and mighty about this, and tout on about your various respect hierarchies and where others fall into them, but at the end of the day, you're really wetting your pants over nothing. Honestly, I think you just lack reading comprehension, or maybe you just want attention yourself? However, I will refrain from internet diagnosing you.
You know what the other guy's post said? You should really re-read it. It said they should come as equals and be judged accordingly. There you go; That's pretty much the summary. Whether or not you agree with it, is that position really as ugly as you make it, or are you simply overreacting? Did it really warrant calling him out in a public forum? I understand white-knighting, and "Won't someone think of the frail, helpless children!" mentality, but Jesus, man..
One guy says, "Don't coddle them."
You say, "That guy is childish and selfish! Coddle them"
There's the summary of this thread. Calm down, my man. Difference of opinion does not an asshole make.
On this we agree. That's not what makes the asshole.
> I think you just lack reading comprehension
> coddle them
If you think advocating mentorship over hostility is me wanting to "coddle" people, you've got a lot of nerve throwing around phrases like "reading comprehension."
I urge you to read through his posting again (slowly). You're phrasing (or closer, shoehorning) his article and your response as a mentorship versus hostility debate, but it feels a bit straw-man-ish misrepresentation to me. Let's keep shifting the other author's position to the "evil" side.
Though, again, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe it was a "terrible," "ugly," and (now apparently) "hostile" article. However, you'd need to point out the directly hostile parts to me, in that case. Because I missed them.
>That's not what makes the asshole.
Oh, you. So cheeky.
I could critique the word choice by saying that using that word suggests that the author is being dishonest and deceitful. Manipulative, while technically correct in the abstract, is not necessarily accurate when one considers that the intent might merely to have been to provide context. At the same time using the word manipulative brings along baggage you might not intend. Manipulative implies intent on the part of the person doing the manipulation.
I could also critique your use of the word in another way (and,as it so happens, the way you used it). Keep in mind, this is still technically correct.
Your use of the word manipulative is deceitful. Your use of the word suggests you know intent, and your use of the word attempts to do what you accuse the the original posters of doing: attempting to manipulate the reader by framing the argument as one against deceitful, manipulative, and by extension, distrustful young people. Words are powerful, and your word choice demonstrates that, at the very least, you either have no clue, or your a vile, deceitful individual.
Both methods of critique are valid. One addresses the problem, the other addresses the person. Both are unbiased and fair criticisms, but only one is polite.
We, as a community should strive to encourage. This is not any where close to blanket approval or being yes men. But do NOT for a minute think that good, helpful criticism is simply unbiased and fair. It is not.