I actually disagree massively with this point. I love Rich Hickey's work, love Clojure but it's kind of an important principle that you have to be able to separate attacks on ideas or systems from attacks on people. If you identify yourself with an idea and I attack it, it's your responsibility to not take it personally and not a reason for me not to make a statement.
If you can't do that, you can't have debate, or science. You can only have tribalism and identity politics.
I agree but only when the "attack" is within civil bounds, which the original blog post crossed(). Otherwise you create a situation where people can attack people while hiding behind the claim they are attacking idea. It doesn't help conversation to support saying Fuck Feminism, but I have no beef with Feminists.
I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack.
> I believe the original post that Rich Hickey is responding to was more a misguided attempt at humor and being provocative than an actual serious attack.
Really? It seemed very earnest--jerkish, but earnest--to me.
Passages like this made me think the author's intent wasn't totally earnest, but going for melodramatic effect.
Now that the party is over and sunrise begins to reveal the plastic fairy lights and overdone makeup, I begin to question my life as well as the values that I am looking for within it.
And the opening was just shock value, or an emotional outburst, not that he hates and wants to move on.
...Fuck Clojure. There I've said it and God it feels good.
More misguided than malicious, which is how I would interpret it if the intent was purely earnest.
is it? solely? so-called "debate" is a two way street, right?
sometimes "attacks" are sloppy and vicious, and it's a bit entitled to expect other people to pick apart your messaging to glean the signal in the noise.
as humans, communication is a physiological process. pretending it's cold machinery rarely ends well.
Right, I agree with you re. Two-way streets, but Hickeys comment literally states that any attack on Clojure is an attack on himself, which I don’t think is fair under the same standard you’re saying should apply... does that make sense? I don’t know if I’m explaining it right.
If you read the additional comments in the original article, comments by the same author, you can see that Rich is directly addressing those when he identifies himself with the system.
If you can't do that, you can't have debate, or science. You can only have tribalism and identity politics.