It would certainly be more charitable to think of "them" as what they really are: people who, just like you, are doing their best to figure out a path for themselves through a mystifying world. At least, I know that's what I am doing, while also being quite sure you think I'm a hipster web 2.0 wank poser.
I appreciate this pushback against my use of "them". I appreciate your astute description of what it is like to be a person.
...Forgive me, if you want, when I contradict myself!
I think there's some value in cliques. I was reminded of this recently when some buddies and I started an every-other-Sunday RPG group. (Heroes Unlimited, FWIW.)
The conversations that come up in that group are really great. The common ground that we share[0] allows me to really get down to brass tacks with ease. ...More easily than I can do here!
Granted, wishing that my public-news-and-commentary-website would be more like my-four-man-paper-and-dice-gaming-club is downright unreasonable. That being said, the fact remains that there are little corners of the web (net!) here and there where discussion about changing the world via tech won't get sidetracked by some perverse anti-SJW point-hunting BS. Wait, ARE THERE? :(
0: physics, respect for the rules (of the game/physics/conversation), puns, beer.
I'm not surprised that your response is so charitable – I wouldn't have bothered responding to you to start with if I thought you seemed like you're just a jerk out to score points against "the other" – but thanks anyway.
What I dislike is not so much the existence of cliques, I agree with you that they have an important place, and I certainly have, and in the past have always had, various "circles" that I enjoy being with far more than other people. What gets under my skin is the way in which cliques think and speak of people on the outside. For instance (to keep picking on you), people who are interested in web applications with lots of user-focused behavior more than other, supposedly "more pure", kinds of applications, whether it's because that's where the jobs are or because that's where the users are or just because they think it's cool, become "hipsters", "wanks", and "posers". The problem isn't with having specific interests and a preference to converse with people who share them, the problem is with the rampant implicit or explicit judgment of people who don't. Maybe it's just an effort to categorize, in order to have an easy shorthand for thinking about what kinds of people you prefer to converse with, but why does this sort of categorization almost always seem to rely on such pejorative language?
In any case, I agree with you that mefi is a great community, but I definitely haven't found any place with as good a variety of technical submissions and discussions as HN, even if it is overrun with bourgeois gentrifiers like myself.
This is interesting because there's like, a role-reversal thing going on here. I don't know if you're aware of it, but I tend to go to the mat for the underdog, the abused (the pejored, if you will!).
But that's it. I'd oppose somebody if I observed them on the attack, but never start anything. And that behavior was systematic. Frankly, it's exploitable.
So, I dunno. I'm in flux. Rethinking some things. Practicing allowing myself to think, even SAY--"you know what? Some people suck, objectively".
I guess your comment "doing their best to figure out a path for themselves through a mystifying world" inspired me to mention that part.
I think the upshot of rejecting some people is that you can lower your cognitive load in group situations. You mentioned it: categorization. For me, it's a pretty fundamental shift (that I'm not sold on yet): actually adding a new category: those that I'd leave behind first in some sort of lifeboat situation. I know that's really harsh. Fortunately real-world lifeboat situations are rare? Without such categorization, you can land in some REALLY dumb situations...
Yeah, I can see the role-reversal you're talking about. I suppose my point is that everyone deserves empathy, not just the underdogs.
You're probably right that "some people suck, objectively", but I don't think I've ever met such a person, so I'm never going to assume that someone I meet who seems to suck is actually an objectively sucky person, but rather just a normal person who, like me, is trying to do the best they know how, and just failing at it in that moment, for whatever reason.
Hey, keep it up! I just got tired, and scared, and really not confident that I'd "make it", much less everybody. So I'm performing an experiment. That you are out there only encourages me.
Meanwhile:
A. mosquitoes (or fleas, if you prefer) are in a category that is very difficult to defend, right? I mean it takes an very broad definition of "we" to include bloodsuckers.
B. If the category described in A. exists, if "we" excludes some creatures... then you have to ask yourself where to draw the line, and that's crappy territory to traverse. But what if it is necessary to traverse it?
And this whole thing came full circle once Paul Graham stepped away. YCombinator was initially cool because it was a hack on the incubator/vc scene and a successful one. Now it seems more like an MBA-esque scheme replete with spreadsheets.
I came across PG because he wrote some battlefront story about using lisp in the early days of dotcom[0]. Probably found a link to that on some emacs site or channel.
Come to think about it, I've only heard the HN crowd praise him. Oh, well, and he does it himself.
What HN does do is give me a steady stream of content to consume. Articles about physics followed by code demos followed by ethnographies.
Shit, have I really been spending time in a pro-money, anti-woman poser circle-wank fest just for the free links?
Just a thought but, I wonder if the change you describe (from discussions about cool tech to how to monetize) has something to do with the demographics of the participants of Hacker News. I'm not sure it is a completely valid generalization (there are still cool tech discussions here that aren't about money), but I can see what you're talking about.
Certainly, many of us have gotten older while we've been a part of the community. This is a generality too, and probably not valid, but, I have noticed that for what we would have defined as a "techie" in the period from 1995-present day, many of us have tired with the hamster-wheel of technology.
By that I mean, we have tired with, a new tech or trend comes up, everybody goes crazy whether it is good or not, much hand-wringing and attention and money is spent, and in a few years, it's old and used and beat up and on to the next thing. It's like the wasteful consumer attitude of use and throw away rather than building things that last. I don't meant to say we haven't built things that last because many of our technologies and organizations certainly have. Just that we're quick to throw out the old for the new, and constantly reinventing yourself every few years can be difficult - at some point you hope to succeed because of your core skills and not just because you know the latest or greatest technology (which may or may not flop in 6 months).
Again, generally speaking, as you get older or as the world continues to get more expensive (the time value of money changing) and the requirements to pay the bills continue, the focus tends to shift away from the cool tech and into how to make money, products, etc.
There's good and bad in this - cool tech for tech's sake is nice but does not always solve real problems that create value or utility for people. Endless searching for profit can destroy great ideas. But in general, solving real problems/needs/desires using old (or new) technologies provides real value to society, and when those generate profit that allow us to exist in the world which requires money to survive, then that's great. One needs balance in all things, some people need to do "cool tech for tech's sake", some need to solve real problems every day, some need to pay the bills and some just need to help the world. Some want to do a blend of those things.
Knowing where you as an individual fall in the spectrum of efforts, needs, pursuits, desires, etc. can be difficult. I guess the best thing one can do is be honest with oneself and then project from there.
Perhaps the changing and continued diversifying demographic of HN, along with the dynamics of requirements of the "real world" are partly what has driven the trend in comments that you point out.
After a while, I just accepted as fact the existence of a large contingent of "hipster web 2.0 wanks" (well, that's the tag I use internally).
But today I'll start an experiment. I'll adjust the internal tag to recognize them by their true name. An old name... Posers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)
I hope this exercise in context will help me be a more discerning reader.