I think not. Haters are distinctive enough that it would make the language less expressive to discard the word and merge it into "critic."
I'm slow to adopt new words, but I think "hater" is a useful addition to the language, and not simply a pejorative version of "critic." The difference is that a critic is what you're called as a byproduct of being critical in a particular instance, whereas being a hater is an ongoing state of mind. So for example it is reasonable to say "he was sometimes a critic of the administration's policy" but not to say "he was sometimes a hater of the administration's policy."
"Hater" is not a pejorative version of "critic" so much as a negative version of "fan." In fact the distinctive thing about a hater is how uncritical his responses are.
What I've seen in this thread is that people have reasons for disliking Dustin, some of which directly relate to Svbtle. To the extent that they don't directly relate, though, people are quite explicitly saying they evaluate Svbtle separate from Dustin.
And by far the most common reaction expressed is a lack of understanding any valid business model for the network, which in your op you say is quite understandable.
What I don't see in this thread is any willful misconstruing of the project. Which seems to be the requirement for a "hater".
HN users are sophisticated enough not to simply post comments saying "I hate Dustin Curtis." Here they resort to something more akin to concern trolling.
The way you can tell something is amiss is the volume of commenters who seem worried about e.g. how Dustin is going to make money. If most startups issued such a bland funding announcement, it would sink beneath the surface of HN with barely a ripple of comment.
Really? Wondering how to monetize a blogazine is concern trolling driven by hating Dustin Curtis?
I worry that moderating this community has jaded you. (That's concern trolling.) It's a valid question, and one I'd ask of any blogazine that received funding; do you stick ads on it? Charge a subscription fee? Sell user data?
Not all of it, no, but some of it. (The whole point of concern trolling is that the two are indistinguishable, so you only notice something's amiss when you see odd patterns.)
For what it's worth, though I posted a post concerned about how Svbtle will make money (with some analysis), I have nothing against Dustin and I wish him the best with Svbtle and other endeavours. Just can't see how this thing makes money later. As a blogger myself, I'm somewhat attracted by Svbtle (there is something desirable about it), but I can't see the sense of blogging there rather than on my own platform. It seems inferior in every way...
pg- when i first read your comments i was surprised at the categorical ad hominem dismissal of svbtle's critics. scrolling down, i see what u mean- the level of negativity and vitriol engendered by seemingly innocuous facts is surprisingly out of proportion. even for HN :) one wonders why the posters torture themselves so much.
the internet has always been packed with garbage - but garbage to you can be treasure to me. don't like it? click the back button! it's always been that easy.
it's almost as if these out of proportion "controversies" against svbtle are being manufactured by svbtle supporters in order to attract attention? sounds like it could work :)
You are correct with your definition of hater. The problem is that your original post doesn't leave any room for critics who comprehend the svbtles game plan, but still find it unappealing. The implication from your post is that 1) a community misunderstanding exists, and 2) that misunderstanding is caused by either people not being intelligent enough to see what svbtle is doing, or people having a personal vendetta against Dustin.
We don't know what Svbtle's game plan is. We don't even know the set of all possible Svbtle business models (as some people are criticizing), because there are business models that haven't been invented yet.
You are correct. But if that is the standard you hold critics to, as opposed to making statements based on all information available at a given time, then no critics would exist, because it is always possible for any group to enter unknown territory.
My problem with the word hater, seeing how it's used at other sites, is that it stops any dialogue and dismisses even valid argument with a permanent label.
So earlier, I posted how I would like to know more about their business plan, because well, it seems hard to understand how they plan to make money. Now I have to worry my comments will be seen as critical and I will be lumped in as a "hater".
Because that's the behavior at other sites. "Hater" allows and encourages polarization.
(Also, I am not sure if on the spectrum hater is related to fan so much as it is related to fanboy.)
but 'hater' smells like a categorical ad hominem attack which may kill any critical thinking against someone 'you' like. neither 'i hate', nore 'you are hater' belong to a mindful discussion where experiences and reasonings collide, imho.
edit: despite saying that, i am indeed a curious follower of dustin curtis, which i learned during recent discussions, he was fiercely and mostly wrongly criticized. (namely, i have personal positive impression in my limbic system for him).
Paul, I'm disappointed to see this from you. Calling someone a “hater”, no matter how carefully and eruditely you define the term, is still an ad hominem attack intended to dismiss their opinion. It's a DH1 on your disagreement hierarchy.
I visit Hacker News because, while not perfect, it does the best job of any internet forum I know of minimizing that kind of cheap attack. It worries me to see the person who created that forum publicly setting a bad example like this. You're basically saying, “ur all just haters, forget u guyz!!1” even if, superficially, the words you use seem smarter and more reasonable. And beyond being an unconvincing argument, I don't think it reflects well on you to be stooping so low (and flat-out insulting so many people) to defend your investment.
Not to be pedantic, but the word "hater" typically refers to a person who dislikes someone out of jealousy.
I think a lot of people dislike Dustin Curtis not because they're jealous of his notoriety, but rather because of his attitude -- or at least the personality he projects on the internet.
Although I disagree with pg's usage of 'hater'(it's arrogantly dismissive in this context) I thought I would provide the surprisingly poignant urbandictionary.com definition:
"
A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.
Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesnt really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock somelse down a notch."
I'm away from my desktop computer (and Opera's bookmark sync doesn't work on my MacBook Air, the PoS), but these two articles seem to capture the imbroglio well enough:
Especially when many of them are making quite long and thought out points. Haters seems appropriate to me only when applied to the most vacuous of comments. Real points deserve real responses or at least the respect of being called comments or criticisms not hate.
That's fair, but I feel like the majority of comments I've read through appear that the poster cannot separate the prospects of Svbtle with their perception of Dustin and his brand. Those aren't critics. They're haters.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying Dustin's reputation can negatively affect the prospects of Svbtle.
While Dustin's brand own brand spills over into Svbtle's, I think the network's prospects can be sufficiently differentiated from Dustin's brand.
Seems to me that the network is becoming large enough where the "tech blog" echo chamber opinion (about one individual) is inconsequential to Svbtle's fate
That also suggests that if Svbtle were to find its way into something good, Curtis may not be seen as essential to ongoing success, whatever that may be. It's founder as catalyst, rather than architect, making it more like Twitter, less like Apple.
Perhaps instead of treating "haters" as a pejorative term one should feel inclined to stand by it. I don't see what's so odious about wanting to see assholes fail. If there's any justice or karma in the world, I'd expect it.
I'm slow to adopt new words, but I think "hater" is a useful addition to the language, and not simply a pejorative version of "critic." The difference is that a critic is what you're called as a byproduct of being critical in a particular instance, whereas being a hater is an ongoing state of mind. So for example it is reasonable to say "he was sometimes a critic of the administration's policy" but not to say "he was sometimes a hater of the administration's policy."
"Hater" is not a pejorative version of "critic" so much as a negative version of "fan." In fact the distinctive thing about a hater is how uncritical his responses are.