Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hackuser 3504 days ago
That comment seems to assume that if enough people do it, it therefore is a good idea. Not all behavior is relatively the same; good and bad don't depend on what the majority likes to do. Lots of people in the business world are condescending toward women; that doesn't make it good or acceptable. In a different context, civil rights exist to protect the minority from the majority.

My point in the GP was that the claim of 'cultural differences' isn't valid; we all learn and adjust to new cultural norms easily, and very few cultures, if any, have the norm of disrespect.

1 comments

Your arguments are internally inconsistent. Up one level, you argue that newcomers should adapt to the norms of different cultures, rather than expecting everybody to conform to their own expectations (fine). rpcastanga points out that Linus is behaving according to the norms of the linux community culture, and by your own argument newcomers should adapt to that culture rather than demanding Linus conform to "professional IT culture". You then turn around and complain about the fallacy of "if enough people do it, it therefore is a good idea". See the contradiction?

As far as I can tell you have not successfully argued that Linus / the linux community have no norm of respect. Other commenters have pointed out that the community does in fact have norms of respect, but that those norms include a clause along the lines of "if you bullshit and command a position where you are expected to know better, you may be bluntly called out on it".

Hi,

> Up one level, you argue that newcomers should adapt to the norms of different cultures

My point was that newcomers can and do adopt norms quickly and easily. Therefore, bad behavior isn't due to 'cultural differences'; those are easily overcome.

> Your arguments are internally inconsistent

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. I'm afraid I am, myself, internally inconsistent. It's glorious. You should try it.

> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Sure, but making sure your defence of your argument doesn't contradict your argument can hardly be considered to be a foolish consistency.