« Teaching is actually kind of hard | Main | Good deed du jour »

Oh here we go

So Matt Gemmell has some issues with my post about comments in "Comments Commentary". He seems to have more of an issue with me, and how I write here, than anything else, but what the hell, let's play. Let's play:

John’s article (strongly in favour of comments, and openly derisive of switching them off) is another response to MG Siegler - and an angry one. Having browsed his blog archive, anger seems to be John’s default emotional state.

Actually, if Matt had read the comments, he'd have seen that I don't have a problem with no comments per se, just twee, pretentious reasoning that seems to require regular justification. But clearly, he's not only against comments on his site, he's against comments everywhere, since he doesn't bother to read them. Here, one of my own comments on it:

(no) comments in and of itself is no big deal. It's the pretense from Gruber, Siegler et al that somehow doing this is creating a smarter internet. *That* part is complete bullshit. If you (dis)allow comments, it doesn't make you smarter or better than anyone else.

That, by the way, is my main point: If you want comments, have comments. If you don't want comments, don't have them. But spare me the pretense that you're better/worse for either decision, and for fuck's sake, stop telling the world why. I have bad impulse control as it is, and I'm a 20-year sysadmin. Anger is not in fact my default state, (sleeping is, if you must know), but it's easily accessible. It's like telling the world why you're no longer using <platform> and moving to <platform>. Really, no one fucking cares what computer you use. I don't know what computer Woz or the fucking president uses, and I don't care. I have enough reasons to care about what computer someone's using, unless I'm maintaining yours, I don't care. At. All. Same thing with comments.

In any case, he writes a considered, long-form response on his own blog saying that it’s a fallacy to think that switching off comments will make people write considered, long-form responses on their own blogs. Hmm.

If that's what Matt considers "long form", he needs to stop relying on Twitter. That's not long form. THIS is long form. However, let's look at the gist of that. He's trying to get in a subtle dig about "Ooh, looks like they were right based on your response." No, they weren't, and the way I learned about Matt's article shows that. No one in the comments on my article, (as of writing this) talked about Matt's article. One person I follow on Twitter happened to, but he did so after I was deep into Skyrim, and by the time I saw twitter this morning, it was way out of view. If I hadn't used the @comment view in Twitter to see if anyone HAD talked about Matt's article (after I found out about it), then I'd have not known from there. It wasn't done in a way that showed up on my site, so I didn't know from there. (Tweets I get feedback on. Random websites from people I've never heard of, not so much.) So how did I even know Matt wrote this? I happen to read Daring Fireball. That's the only reason. And even then, I only hit the link because I was mildly curious if he was going to mention my rant, and if so, how? (Yes, and rather badly.)

If it wasn't for me reading DF this morning, or I'd waited too long and it wasn't on the main page, I'd have not seen Matt's article. It's possible, I could have gone for weeks and not seen it or never seen it. So much for the mechanics of the "other people will see this and respond" theory being all that reliable. It works if you happen to follow the people who write the response, or someone you follow tweets about it (and you see it), or someone actually tells you about it. There's a word for that: chance. Chance is how you win lotteries, not how you have a conversation. Also, if I somewhat tired and grumpy this morning, and written something on commenting, (DAMN YOU SKYRIM), I doubt I would have read Matt's article. So no, relying on some magical Intarweb telepathy doesn't work.

Now, ego searches DO work, but I dislike those, so I don't do them. That, by the way, seems to be the only reliable way for the method Gemmell et all espouse to work: you have to pretty much have a few saved ego searches and check them regularly. Fuck that.

(I’m actually being a bit unfair here; what he says is that comments-off won’t create more intelligent discourse. John’s response is intelligent as far as it goes, but I do take issue with its confrontational tone, implied ad hominems and nigh-constant needless profanity. I’d also say that this article that you’re reading now, with its many links to just such intelligent discourse, ably disproves his assertion.)

Oh christ, another one whining about profanity. Here, I'll let Stephen Fry answer that for me:

Swearing is a really important part of one's life. It would be impossible to imagine going through life without swearing and without enjoying swearing... There used to be mad, silly, prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense. The people I know who swear the most tend to have the widest vocabularies and the kind of person who says swearing is a sign of a poor vocabulary usually have a pretty poor vocabulary themselves... The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest or -is just a fucking lunatic... I haven't met anybody who's truly shocked at swearing, really, they're only shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know, that's preposterous... or they say 'it's not necessary'. As if that should stop one doing it! It's not necessary to have coloured socks, it's not necessary for this cushion to be here, but is anyone going to write in and say 'I was shocked to see that cushion there, it really wasn't necessary'? No, things not being necessary is what makes life interesting -the little extras in life.

Also, Matt clearly has forgotten what "Ad Hominem" means. Me calling the anticommentarian arguments, by and large, pretentious bullshit is not Ad Hominem. Me calling MG Siegler, Matt Gemmell, and Gruber pretentious idiots, vapid hipsters, or <pick your pejorative, it really doesn't matter> is not Ad Hominem. Calling people you disagree with names is not "Ad Hominem". It is not nice, and is probably being an Asshole, but it's not Ad Hominem. For it to be Ad Hominem, I'd have to say something like "MG Siegler is a hipster, therefore, he's wrong". THAT is Ad Hominem. Stop using that fucking concept to cover people being foulmouthed rantmavens.

The main topic covered (and it’s the first time I’ve seen it in this debate) is that responses on external blogs which link to your article will confer search-engine relevance and rank to you. From my understanding of search engines, that’s true enough (with greater rank being conferred by links from pages perceived to be high-quality themselves). John is outraged at this, and implies - but never quite states - that that’s the actual, evil hidden purpose of ‘comments off’. Accordingly, he spitefully refuses to even link to the article which prompted his response.

Matt's right: it is in fact spiteful. Petty as well. Too fucking bad, I guess if I were more smarter because I disallowed comments, I'd know better. Note that my only crime here is not linking. If you search for "MG Siegler Comments", you find the article in question pretty quick. Hell, this article attributes like hell to Matt. I just don't link to him. But again, that's the new stupidity: it's not enough to attribute, you have to link. Well, fuck you, no I don't, and it's not some kind of crime. Also, if SEO isn't important, why is linking so fucking critical? If the attribution tells you who wrote the bits I didn't, and/or the title, the link is a convenience, and a nice gesture. It is not in fact, required, and not linking is not wrong. But, in for a penny, in for a pound I suppose.

And I do think that anyone making money from their websites, or as web writers is aware of the search engine advantages conferred by requiring other sites to link to you to "comment" on your "conversation". I will allow that it isn't always a primary motivation, but don't tell me no one's aware of it. I evidently have the bad form to say it out loud. Oh well.

The real argument here, once again, is that those who switch off comments lack due humility. We’re not humble enough for John, and that angers him.

BAAAAHAAHAHAHAA....this from a guy accusing me of ad hominem. No you prat, it's not a matter of humility, it's a matter of NMDs and hipsters needing to make fucking sure we know a) they're smarter than us and b) why, every fucking second. If they change beers, fuck, EVERYONE has to know. If they saw a good movie, everyone not only has to know, but they have to know WHY it's good and the history of everything the director's ever done, and if you don't agree, well, "I just can't talk to you". Fuck that shit. Everyone does it, I do it here on occasion. But I don't expect it to be anything but annoying, and I don't think the fact I like something makes me smarter than anyone else. Probably makes me dumber, my taste in movies is pretty bad. (Yes, I liked Transformers 2, fuck you.)

It’s a very common argument against disabling comments (even moreso since I believe it’s the real motivation behind several other arguments), and it’s worthy of a serious discussion - which John’s article, in my allegedly not-so-humble opinion, isn’t.

If I could ban one thing from human discourse, it would be the false humilty we require of people when it comes to opinions. "In my humble opinion". Oh bullshit. If you're offering an opinion, it's not humble. You're taking a fucking stand on an issue. Could be a minor issue, could be a major issue, but an opinion is inherently not humble. If you want to have a humble opinion, shut the fuck up and stop blathering about it. People can be humble. Opinions cannot be humble. Who the fuck cares about an opinion if the person giving it is being a vacillating wussy about it?

But I'm glad he thinks that my only issue here is that I have a "right" to comments. Based on that vapid, lazy response, Matt has another right. It involves his lips upon my ass. Why do I grant him that right? Because for someone so willing to support people's "right" to have their blog run in the way they seem fit, he seems to have a big problem with how I run mine. Funny how that happens when someone won't let you determine how they think or respond to things. He's not the first one to pull that schtick, the "you can run your site however you want, but...". Whatever. (Also, given that he doesn't allow comments, I'm unsure as to why he had to come all the way over here to read my horrid little rant or how he even knew about it. (Maybe he follows me on twitter? Fuck if I know.) It's not like I get that much traffic, I don't have that many readers. I don't even have ads. This site isn't designed to be a moneymaker. Hell, the main pull to my site in terms of traffic/google is a three year old article on SNMP. This is NOT that popular a site, really. Yet, over and over, people come here, and act like somehow, I made them. That's like walking in my yard and bitching you stepped in dog shit, and I should clean it up better for strangers. Really?)

Like I said, you can have comments or not, but for fuck's sake, stop acting like (not) having them does anything for anyone but you.

Categories: Other

Posted by John C. Welch at 11:56 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

So Matt Gemmell has some issues with my post about comments in \"Comments Commentary\". He seems to have more of an issue with me, and how I write here, than anything else, but what the hell, let's play. Let's play:\n\n

John’s article (strongly in favour of comments, and openly derisive of switching them off) is another response to MG Siegler - and an angry one. Having browsed his blog archive, anger seems to be John’s default emotional state.

\n\nActually, if Matt had read the comments, he'd have seen that I don't have a problem with no comments per se, just twee, pretentious reasoning that seems to require regular justification. But clearly, he's not only against comments on his site, he's against comments everywhere, since he doesn't bother to read them. Here, one of my own comments on it:\n\n

(no) comments in and of itself is no big deal. It's the pretense from Gruber, Siegler et al that somehow doing this is creating a smarter internet. *That* part is complete bullshit. If you (dis)allow comments, it doesn't make you smarter or better than anyone else.

\n\nThat, by the way, is my main point: If you want comments, have comments. If you don't want comments, don't have them. But spare me the pretense that you're better/worse for either decision, and for fuck's sake, stop telling the world why. I have bad impulse control as it is, and I'm a 20-year sysadmin. Anger is not in fact my default state, (sleeping is, if you must know), but it's easily accessible. It's like telling the world why you're no longer using <platform> and moving to <platform>. Really, no one fucking cares what computer you use. I don't know what computer Woz or the fucking president uses, and I don't care. I have enough reasons to care about what computer someone's using, unless I'm maintaining yours, I don't care. At. All. Same thing with comments.\n\n

In any case, he writes a considered, long-form response on his own blog saying that it’s a fallacy to think that switching off comments will make people write considered, long-form responses on their own blogs. Hmm.

\n\nIf that's what Matt considers \"long form\", he needs to stop relying on Twitter. That's not long form. THIS is long form. However, let's look at the gist of that. He's trying to get in a subtle dig about \"Ooh, looks like they were right based on your response.\" No, they weren't, and the way I learned about Matt's article shows that. No one in the comments on my article, (as of writing this) talked about Matt's article. One person I follow on Twitter happened to, but he did so after I was deep into Skyrim, and by the time I saw twitter this morning, it was way out of view. If I hadn't used the @comment view in Twitter to see if anyone HAD talked about Matt's article (after I found out about it), then I'd have not known from there. It wasn't done in a way that showed up on my site, so I didn't know from there. (Tweets I get feedback on. Random websites from people I've never heard of, not so much.) So how did I even know Matt wrote this? I happen to read Daring Fireball. That's the only reason. And even then, I only hit the link because I was mildly curious if he was going to mention my rant, and if so, how? (Yes, and rather badly.)\n\nIf it wasn't for me reading DF this morning, or I'd waited too long and it wasn't on the main page, I'd have not seen Matt's article. It's possible, I could have gone for weeks and not seen it or never seen it. So much for the mechanics of the \"other people will see this and respond\" theory being all that reliable. It works if you happen to follow the people who write the response, or someone you follow tweets about it (and you see it), or someone actually tells you about it. There's a word for that: chance. Chance is how you win lotteries, not how you have a conversation. Also, if I somewhat tired and grumpy this morning, and written something on commenting, (DAMN YOU SKYRIM), I doubt I would have read Matt's article. So no, relying on some magical Intarweb telepathy doesn't work. \n\nNow, ego searches DO work, but I dislike those, so I don't do them. That, by the way, seems to be the only reliable way for the method Gemmell et all espouse to work: you have to pretty much have a few saved ego searches and check them regularly. Fuck that.\n\n

(I’m actually being a bit unfair here; what he says is that comments-off won’t create more intelligent discourse. John’s response is intelligent as far as it goes, but I do take issue with its confrontational tone, implied ad hominems and nigh-constant needless profanity. I’d also say that this article that you’re reading now, with its many links to just such intelligent discourse, ably disproves his assertion.)

\n\nOh christ, another one whining about profanity. Here, I'll let Stephen Fry answer that for me:\n\n

Swearing is a really important part of one's life. It would be impossible to imagine going through life without swearing and without enjoying swearing... There used to be mad, silly, prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense. The people I know who swear the most tend to have the widest vocabularies and the kind of person who says swearing is a sign of a poor vocabulary usually have a pretty poor vocabulary themselves... The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest or -is just a fucking lunatic... I haven't met anybody who's truly shocked at swearing, really, they're only shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know, that's preposterous... or they say 'it's not necessary'. As if that should stop one doing it! It's not necessary to have coloured socks, it's not necessary for this cushion to be here, but is anyone going to write in and say 'I was shocked to see that cushion there, it really wasn't necessary'? No, things not being necessary is what makes life interesting -the little extras in life.

\n\nAlso, Matt clearly has forgotten what \"Ad Hominem\" means. Me calling the anticommentarian arguments, by and large, pretentious bullshit is not Ad Hominem. Me calling MG Siegler, Matt Gemmell, and Gruber pretentious idiots, vapid hipsters, or <pick your pejorative, it really doesn't matter> is not Ad Hominem. Calling people you disagree with names is not \"Ad Hominem\". It is not nice, and is probably being an Asshole, but it's not Ad Hominem. For it to be Ad Hominem, I'd have to say something like \"MG Siegler is a hipster, therefore, he's wrong\". THAT is Ad Hominem. Stop using that fucking concept to cover people being foulmouthed rantmavens.\n\n

The main topic covered (and it’s the first time I’ve seen it in this debate) is that responses on external blogs which link to your article will confer search-engine relevance and rank to you. From my understanding of search engines, that’s true enough (with greater rank being conferred by links from pages perceived to be high-quality themselves). John is outraged at this, and implies - but never quite states - that that’s the actual, evil hidden purpose of ‘comments off’. Accordingly, he spitefully refuses to even link to the article which prompted his response.

\n\nMatt's right: it is in fact spiteful. Petty as well. Too fucking bad, I guess if I were more smarter because I disallowed comments, I'd know better. Note that my only crime here is not linking. If you search for \"MG Siegler Comments\", you find the article in question pretty quick. Hell, this article attributes like hell to Matt. I just don't link to him. But again, that's the new stupidity: it's not enough to attribute, you have to link. Well, fuck you, no I don't, and it's not some kind of crime. Also, if SEO isn't important, why is linking so fucking critical? If the attribution tells you who wrote the bits I didn't, and/or the title, the link is a convenience, and a nice gesture. It is not in fact, required, and not linking is not wrong. But, in for a penny, in for a pound I suppose.\n\nAnd I do think that anyone making money from their websites, or as web writers is aware of the search engine advantages conferred by requiring other sites to link to you to \"comment\" on your \"conversation\". I will allow that it isn't always a primary motivation, but don't tell me no one's aware of it. I evidently have the bad form to say it out loud. Oh well.\n\n

The real argument here, once again, is that those who switch off comments lack due humility. We’re not humble enough for John, and that angers him.

\n\nBAAAAHAAHAHAHAA....this from a guy accusing me of ad hominem. No you prat, it's not a matter of humility, it's a matter of NMDs and hipsters needing to make fucking sure we know a) they're smarter than us and b) why, every fucking second. If they change beers, fuck, EVERYONE has to know. If they saw a good movie, everyone not only has to know, but they have to know WHY it's good and the history of everything the director's ever done, and if you don't agree, well, \"I just can't talk to you\". Fuck that shit. Everyone does it, I do it here on occasion. But I don't expect it to be anything but annoying, and I don't think the fact I like something makes me smarter than anyone else. Probably makes me dumber, my taste in movies is pretty bad. (Yes, I liked Transformers 2, fuck you.)\n\n

It’s a very common argument against disabling comments (even moreso since I believe it’s the real motivation behind several other arguments), and it’s worthy of a serious discussion - which John’s article, in my allegedly not-so-humble opinion, isn’t.

\n\nIf I could ban one thing from human discourse, it would be the false humilty we require of people when it comes to opinions. \"In my humble opinion\". Oh bullshit. If you're offering an opinion, it's not humble. You're taking a fucking stand on an issue. Could be a minor issue, could be a major issue, but an opinion is inherently not humble. If you want to have a humble opinion, shut the fuck up and stop blathering about it. People can be humble. Opinions cannot be humble. Who the fuck cares about an opinion if the person giving it is being a vacillating wussy about it?\n\nBut I'm glad he thinks that my only issue here is that I have a \"right\" to comments. Based on that vapid, lazy response, Matt has another right. It involves his lips upon my ass. Why do I grant him that right? Because for someone so willing to support people's \"right\" to have their blog run in the way they seem fit, he seems to have a big problem with how I run mine. Funny how that happens when someone won't let you determine how they think or respond to things. He's not the first one to pull that schtick, the \"you can run your site however you want, but...\". Whatever. (Also, given that he doesn't allow comments, I'm unsure as to why he had to come all the way over here to read my horrid little rant or how he even knew about it. (Maybe he follows me on twitter? Fuck if I know.) It's not like I get that much traffic, I don't have that many readers. I don't even have ads. This site isn't designed to be a moneymaker. Hell, the main pull to my site in terms of traffic/google is a three year old article on SNMP. This is NOT that popular a site, really. Yet, over and over, people come here, and act like somehow, I made them. That's like walking in my yard and bitching you stepped in dog shit, and I should clean it up better for strangers. Really?)\n\nLike I said, you can have comments or not, but for fuck's sake, stop acting like (not) having them does anything for anyone but you.