Hacker News Reader

The fact that you accept the possibility that those people at the party and stadiums are masking their misery with beer and baseball says more about yourself than it does about the author. You seem to agree, but don't want to come right out and say it.

To what part of my comment could you possibly be referring? Let me state that this is a direct invitation for you to find in my previous comment the line or lines that supports your statement about my purported beliefs about 'those people at the party' and that I 'agree but don't want to...say it.' Put up or shut up.

Many people, yourself included, mask their personalities with a phony sense of optimism and say, "Hey, mang, leave my friend alone. He may be happy here at this baseball game, getting drunk and probably later falling asleep in your garden."

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. First, "Have you been to a...naked-ignorant-frat-boy flailing party?", implying that I haven't, or at least haven't perceived the true nature of it, and then, "Hey, mang, " & etc., seemingly implying that this is my lifestyle and that I'm defending it. It's telling that your hypothetical example individual not only is not 'happy...at [the] baseball game,' but that, as proof he is not, he later '[falls] asleep in your garden.' Again, point to the part of my comment that supports your allegation of a 'phony optimism' or retract your insipid allegation.

It's also telling that the author's non-specific use of the word 'party' induces, in you, the concept of the most objectionable kind of party you can think of, one in which the participants are engaging in some kind of blatant mass stupidity, by your judgment. Why would one compare oneself to this particular set? Why choose who one believes are the worst of the worst to which to compare oneself, unless one wants to aggrandize oneself? That is the root of the suspicion. Why not say, "Go to the boardroom of Google. Feel the tension. Everybody is faking it."? Indeed, some do, but only those who wish to waylay the corporate as inherently evil. And they do so by making the corporate out to be the opposite of themselves, who are by definition, 'good'.

Starting a company is not socially acceptable.

I want whatever you're smoking.

I believe the author's "ressentiment" is born out of the belief that the drones at parties and baseball games have somehow given in and given up rather then getting what they actually wanted.

Look at the pejoratives: 'drones', 'given in', 'given up', 'parties' as frat-boy free-for-alls, 'baseball games' as a collection of drones, and 'rather then [sic] getting what they actually wanted'. I submit, based on this portion of your comment, that you are so accustomed to committing Nitezsche's ressentiment that you cannot even see when you are doing it, nor the sheer number of spurious value-judgments that you must make in order to support it.

It may help you to understand that ressentiment is not just dislike for a class that has bested you, but the transmutation of that dislike into a moral statement, the statement that "They are wrong for winning, and all of the qualities that make them the winners are evil, and all of the qualities that make me the loser are virtues."

Actually, [having a software job with benefits and vacations] leaves me with the feeling that the author describes.

I leave it to you whether this feeling is a function of your psychology or a function of the lifestyle in which you were engaged. Was it subjective, rooted in you, or objective, rooted in the circumstance?

Put up or shut up.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

...or retract your insipid allegation.

I want whatever you're smoking.

It may help you to understand that...

Good grief. Can we keep this kind of meanness out of HN comment threads or do I need to find another community?

While I understand your exasperation, the first 3 of the 5 statements you listed were directed at getting debt to support or retract some unjustified and repugnant accusations about my purported beliefs. I make no apologies for vigorously and forcefully demanding that my accusers defend their accusations or retract them. In this case, debt has done neither.

The fourth statement was a reaction to a particularly egregious instance of an unsupported statement. I like to think of it as 'robust humor,' but reasonable people could disagree.

The final instance, "It may help you to understand that..." was genuinely polite. debt had gone off the rails at this point and clearly does not understand even the definition of ressentiment about which he is commenting. I humbly suggest that this one doesn't even belong on your list.

I forget the article, but there was a link on HN that covered, among other things, the differences between a 'community' and a 'society' online, and how these paralleled their irl counterparts. HN, if it can be called anything at all, must be called a 'society' rather than a 'community', if only because of its size. We simply cannot form communal ties with the sheer number of people on HN. And in a civil 'society', a little meanness is permitted, even encouraged, when responding to an attack by another member of the society.

debt has not played, and still is not playing, by the rules. Either his reading comprehension is so poor or his disregard for accuracy so complete that he is not fit for civil discussion on this site. This would not matter at all if he would at least refrain from making unsupported statements about others' beliefs and intentions. Just look at my original post and try to find justification for his aspersions, and then ask yourself what HN would be like if debt and his ilk ran amok unchecked. Justice and/or basic dignity demand that we give to him as we get from him until he either comes around or buggers off.

I think you can see that there's a difference between this kind of 'meanness' and the abject trolling and plain incivility present on other sites. This 'meanness' has a preservative and defensive function, I would argue, and should not be shied away from. To shy away, I think, would be to give in to an excessive squeamishness and would surrender the debate to persons, like debt, who are unfit to inherit this site.

I fail to see any other course in circumstances like these, but I am open to reasoned correction on this matter. And, if pg or the other demigods of HN want to chime in on the matter, their opinions would be welcome, even definitive, to some extent. Until then, when I am confronted with the kind of unreasoning and brutishly unfounded claims evidenced by debt, I will come out, metaphorical guns a-blazin', at my discretion.

Respectfully, mkn

EDIT: It is bitterly ironic that a post which contains the phrase 'I am open to reasoned correction' should be downmodded into negative territory, instead of reasonably replied to. If there is a clearer indication of the ineffectiveness of this turn-the-other-cheek pussification of debate on HN, I cannot imagine it. We will get the forum we deserve, I guess.

Honestly? I don't mind your "meanness" as others see it. I enjoy it. You want answers. Good, I'd love to give them to you. However, I didn't want this to go into personal attacks. I figured if I didn't respond to it, or, at least, if I responded in the way I did already it would come off as light-hearted and die away. I really did not mean for what I said to come off as a personal attack. I'll explain my accusation anyway.

You said this: This is Nietasche's ressentiment, the origin of moral feeling. Observe the hatred he has for the successful and the contented. They have won at the game of life, in that they fit in, are laughing, are enjoying themselves, yet the author feels that there must be something wrong with them. They must deserve his scorn because he has not achieved the ease and confidence that they show. It must be a chimera. Meditation sets the author apart. He has stamina. He has determination. He has 'grit', and for this he is despised by the masses. Bullshit.

The author of the article DOES NOT say that he hates these people, that these people are miserable, that these people have won at anything. Nowhere does he say they fit in, or that it must be chimera. Nor does he directly compare himself to these lesser-thans. No. YOU have said this. YOU show us your observation. The author was saying perhaps, they want more. Not that they are winners, but that they want more. You immediately jump to the conclusion that he holds "ressentiment" or whatever the fuck you call it. When all he was saying is that perhaps, they aren't as happy as they seem. Nothing more, nothing less. They didn't WIN or LOSE at life, rather, a different life is waiting for them if they themselves wait.

It's my opinion that the only way a person can hold the point of view you hold is if they, at some point in their lives, have themselves seen others in a similar way.

On a basic level, the author is just suggesting people take a moment and reflect on themselves and their own lives.

I'm really not trying to make this a personal attack on you, but, you seem like a reasonable person and there is some subtle bullshit inherent in your original post which got past your own built-in bs detectors somehow.

First of all, starting a company is not socially acceptable. Having less money cuts out a lot of my options. It means I can't go out as much with friends. After enough times of, "Sorry, guys, can't go out, I have to work.", it becomes very socially unacceptable.

Secondly, and most importantly, I do not view a free-for-all frat party/charade/parade as winning. They aren't smart. They aren't funny or clever. They are definitely NOT winning. I am definitely not jealous or envious of their situations. Maybe a bit jealous that they get all the girls, but I can look past that once I see one of them break a bathroom mirror over their head.

A party at Google is a party of people who "got it". They went after what they wanted and got it. That simple. It's not at all a party made up of mindless drones that the author of this article is talking about. I wouldn't even call a party of Googlers a party unless they were doing body shots off Sergey and singing Sweet Caroline at the top of their lungs. But then what? They aren't mindless drones, but they can still party hard. At this point, the author would say, "Perhaps, while they seem to believe that they have gotten what they wanted, they actually have not. Look how they party. They seem to want more."

If what these party drones are doing is "winning", then they are certainly in the wrong in my mind. Ah, it has just hit me. I know what "ressentiment" is.

It's seeing amazing potential going to waste and "transmuting" my disgust for that into a moral imperative to actively prevent that from happening to myself or anyone I care about.

You're right I have ressentiment, but it's for everyone who's potential is going to waste. It's for all the smart people who got caught with a few grams of pot, or some smart girl who only married the guy because he got her pregnant or the philosophy major who spends more time and energy procrastinating, writing HN comments, then he does finishing his thesis or socializing or socializing about his thesis or socializing at frat parties while expounding on his great ideas in his thesis.

I would think the latter being the most beneficial at least so I have someone to talk to at those damn parties.

EDIT: All I'm saying, is that there should be nothing wrong with believing television is terrible, pop music sucks, and belligerent drunks are losers. All are a waste of time, money, resources better not spent at all. If Nietzsche says I have "ressentiment", then fuck it, that's what I have. If meditation furthers my distance from those things, then that's what I'll do.

Along with my downvote, I have a productive suggestion for you. Go read:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind....

It's an f'ing great blog post from an absurdly talented writer, so in addition to the personal jab I'm making by directing you to it, I'm also trying to enhance your evening (or morning or whenever you read this) by giving you something fun to look at.

Because your argument is, to an exasperating degree, "excluding the middle". Meditation or beer bongs. And if that weren't enough, you take it a step further than even this sanctimonious article about meditation, and draw a straight line from drunk, stoned fraternity people to, for instance, attendance at baseball games.

Whatever you think it is meditation has done for you, it isn't in evidence tonight.

A party at Google is a party of people who "got it". ... It's not at all a party made up of mindless drones

Obviously you have not been to a Google party recently...

LOL! Yeah, Google is like 20,000 people now, and most of them joined when Google was a "safe" career choice. A Google party is probably much like an IBM or HP party now.

You know, sometimes you can have beer, have a laugh with others, and just enjoy being.

And, you know, sometimes it's possible to talk about a specific instance of something, without also making a broad generalisation that covers all possible cases.

> Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Have you been to a party recently? I mean, a serious beer-pong-playing, beer-bonging, naked-ignorant-frat-boy flailing party? They're terrible. Everyone is clearly pretending to have a good time. Everything smells like beer or puke.

You need to go to better parties. Note that by "better", I'm not talking about location or gimmicks. Just don't get together with people you don't like. If everyone likes everyone else, they can all be natural.