8 ms·

"One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions.

"One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions. It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions. Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average. That cannot be your role. There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself. Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong." --http://halfhalf.posterous.com/dont-work-be-hated-love-someone http://halfhalf.posterous.com/dont-work-be-hated-love-someon...

ElliotH 14y ago
You incorrectly assume malice on the part of the blog author. Frustration makes it easy to see the world as people who are for your position and others who are against your position. In this situation it seems far more likely that the author is unaware that his site works badly with your setup. The quote is about making your cause succeed. Here you could have won by sending an email. Instead you shouted at people on HN. Nobody learned anything about making the internet better for you. Maybe your goal is just to let people know that this makes you angry, you succeeded. Well done. But you didn't follow through with why they should care, so no change is effected. Its good to be hated by those who hate your just cause. Maybe its less good to be hated by those who are simply ignorant of it? I'd say you missed the point of the quote entirely.
- nerdfiles 14y ago
  No. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I am asking _why are you using inline styles?_ I'm trying to explain "stupidity," not "malice." You're interpreting assumption of malice from my tone, style, and frustration. And I am frustrated, furious even. I'm furious about typesetting. I'd happily go down being that guy. The guy who foams at the mouth and rages about typesetting; what's more, when it's about liberating dyslexic users. Yes, go ape-shit about typesetting. I'm citing my sources, and making my arguments. You're not reading me aright. And that's a matter of "opinion filter"; that's all I can really say about that. We don't read the same self-help books. Where I come from, Nietzsche and Mencken are the tour de force, not diplomatic tongue. My apologies if you feel that is inappropriate for Web development practices; but I honestly do not care. And moreover, I just saw Torvalds flip off Nvidia. So, what? Who do I follow? Not one of you has the right idea on personal brand. I'm asking why. The question is why. Why? It's "why?" "Why?" I'm calling them "poor development practices." How do you get blame out of that? "(nonemotional deadpan) How?"

ElliotH 14y ago

You incorrectly assume malice on the part of the blog author. Frustration makes it easy to see the world as people who are for your position and others who are against your position. In this situation it seems far more likely that the author is unaware that his site works badly with your setup. The quote is about making your cause succeed. Here you could have won by sending an email. Instead you shouted at people on HN. Nobody learned anything about making the internet better for you. Maybe your goal is just to let people know that this makes you angry, you succeeded. Well done. But you didn't follow through with why they should care, so no change is effected. Its good to be hated by those who hate your just cause. Maybe its less good to be hated by those who are simply ignorant of it? I'd say you missed the point of the quote entirely.

nerdfiles 14y ago
No. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I am asking _why are you using inline styles?_ I'm trying to explain "stupidity," not "malice." You're interpreting assumption of malice from my tone, style, and frustration. And I am frustrated, furious even. I'm furious about typesetting. I'd happily go down being that guy. The guy who foams at the mouth and rages about typesetting; what's more, when it's about liberating dyslexic users. Yes, go ape-shit about typesetting. I'm citing my sources, and making my arguments. You're not reading me aright. And that's a matter of "opinion filter"; that's all I can really say about that. We don't read the same self-help books. Where I come from, Nietzsche and Mencken are the tour de force, not diplomatic tongue. My apologies if you feel that is inappropriate for Web development practices; but I honestly do not care. And moreover, I just saw Torvalds flip off Nvidia. So, what? Who do I follow? Not one of you has the right idea on personal brand. I'm asking why. The question is why. Why? It's "why?" "Why?" I'm calling them "poor development practices." How do you get blame out of that? "(nonemotional deadpan) How?"