1. -3
    1. 2


    2. 1

      I… actually ended up commenting on that blog post. A comment explaining why meritocracy isn’t, as a lead in for explaining why ‘SJWs’ are actually pretty reasonable. If anyone responds to it, I’ll continue explanation.

      But yeah, mostly it looks like a trashfire.

      Related: can we have a ‘trashfire’ tag, so that people can see when we are linking to stuff that we disagree with for purposes of highlighting it, rather than for purposes of agreeing with it? If there was such a tag, and it were applied here, I would not have downvoted the link.

      Edit: Also, my comment is currently awaiting moderation, so we will see if it gets through.

      1. 2

        There is a rant tag. But I’m not sure that makes it better. Why do we want to highlight trash?

        1. 3

          An awareness thing, I guess?

          Like, here is what xyz influential person in our industry is saying, and it is unfortunately quite wrong.

          It would probably be better to link to a post explaining the problems with the thing though, rather than just a link to the thing with a tag like ‘trashfire’.

          Even ‘rant’ doen’t really fit for tagging though, as the assumption when you post a link to Lobsters is that you at least partially agree with the contents, or feel that it is in some way ‘high quality’. I have read rants and manifestos that were quite high quality that were posted here, for instance.

          1. 6
            1. ESR would be a lot less influential if people stopped linking to his crazy nonsense and saying “look what this influential person is saying!”.

            2. There is a submission rebutting ESR, so I think we’ve got that covered too.

            1. 1

              Good points.

      2. 1

        You can type “I don’t agree with this” into the description already. Do you see a shortcoming with this that you believe a trashfire tag would address?

        1. 1

          Three things: firstly, it means that logged in users could filter ‘trashfire’ out, or search for it specifically. Secondly, it could have a negative hotness modifier, like rant. Thirdly is just the usual thing with descriptions that massively change the context of a submission - that it might get a bunch of up or down votes from people who haven’t read the description because they only clicked through to the article, and haven’t clicked through to the lobsters comment section as well, because they did not feel the need to write a comment.

          But yeah, probably better to just link to a post rebutting the trashfire, instead of linking directly to a trashfire.

    3. 0
       Political Commissar Eric Raymond issues an edict banning incorrect thinking;
       Awards himself a merit badge.
       goto loop