Was the phrasing used, instead of (“you are...”). To try to point out what it sounds like he is saying… (probably could have said—“to me it sounds like...”, but that should be a given—I am posting the post...)
Ugliest or not; it’s an interpretation that I chose to share. I also tried to improve the statement to make it less “ugly”.
I don’t know—should I not do that at all?
Can you help with what it “sounds like” I am doing? (keen to learn and change)
I don’t oppose drawing interpretations, but the whole InIn discussion has been tainted by opponents attacking each other’s motivations for what they said instead of the content of what they said.
in light of that: “to me it sounds like...” is probably more appropriate.
My state is that Gleb is trying to do good things—i.e. raise the sanity waterline (as a goal).
As yet he has made a lot of noise and not shown success in the process; or produced content worthy of respect. It remains to be seen if he:
improves;
continues to further offend seasoned members (through various methods i.e. weak content); or
quits.
Given those seem like the options; I would rather 1 then 3 then 2.
I expect from glebs perspective it looks like:
invest more effort into the content to the point where it seems not worth it
fight the haters and win, then keep doing more of what has happened.
give up on a serious dream to improve the world.
where his preference order is 2, 1, 3.
I hope we can meet in the middle; and given that “fight the haters and win on the internet” is a statement of comedy itself, I am keen to see the content improve.
I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think this is what Elo would consider “improvement”.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think it’s okay to put those words (“sleazy scummy concentrated snake oil”) in someone else’s mouth, unless it is part of an actual quote.
I am not quoting Gleb, I’m rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.
Gleb described having had to overpower reluctance to write in the style that publications like Lifehacker want, expressed some reservations about that style in morally-neutral language, and gave reasons for using it anyways. Separately, you and others (but not Gleb) described that style as sleazy and scummy. Mix these two things together and discard the attributions, and you’ve created the impression that Gleb thinks of the style as sleazy and scummy, and writes in it anyways. That would reflect negatively on his character if it were true, but it isn’t. Having to use an actual quote would have made this mistake impossible.
I wasn’t trying for any gotchas, my point was—and remains—that in this case the word “improvement” is likely to be understood differently by different people.
I am not passing any moral judgments or making insinuations about anyone’s character.
By the way, if you’re aiming for accuracy, the verb Gleb used was “cringe”. You chose to render it as “reluctance” which, I think, also changes the flavour albeit in another direction. It’s up to you to decide whether cringing and still writing “would reflect negatively on his character” :-P
Why assume the ugliest possible interpretation of his meaning?
I would call this an example of tell culture.
Was the phrasing used, instead of (“you are...”). To try to point out what it sounds like he is saying… (probably could have said—“to me it sounds like...”, but that should be a given—I am posting the post...)
Ugliest or not; it’s an interpretation that I chose to share. I also tried to improve the statement to make it less “ugly”.
I don’t know—should I not do that at all?
Can you help with what it “sounds like” I am doing? (keen to learn and change)
I don’t oppose drawing interpretations, but the whole InIn discussion has been tainted by opponents attacking each other’s motivations for what they said instead of the content of what they said.
True.
in light of that: “to me it sounds like...” is probably more appropriate.
My state is that Gleb is trying to do good things—i.e. raise the sanity waterline (as a goal).
As yet he has made a lot of noise and not shown success in the process; or produced content worthy of respect. It remains to be seen if he:
improves;
continues to further offend seasoned members (through various methods i.e. weak content); or
quits.
Given those seem like the options; I would rather 1 then 3 then 2.
I expect from glebs perspective it looks like:
invest more effort into the content to the point where it seems not worth it
fight the haters and win, then keep doing more of what has happened.
give up on a serious dream to improve the world.
where his preference order is 2, 1, 3.
I hope we can meet in the middle; and given that “fight the haters and win on the internet” is a statement of comedy itself, I am keen to see the content improve.
I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think this is what Elo would consider “improvement”.
I don’t think it’s okay to put those words (“sleazy scummy concentrated snake oil”) in someone else’s mouth, unless it is part of an actual quote.
I am not quoting Gleb, I’m rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.
Gleb described having had to overpower reluctance to write in the style that publications like Lifehacker want, expressed some reservations about that style in morally-neutral language, and gave reasons for using it anyways. Separately, you and others (but not Gleb) described that style as sleazy and scummy. Mix these two things together and discard the attributions, and you’ve created the impression that Gleb thinks of the style as sleazy and scummy, and writes in it anyways. That would reflect negatively on his character if it were true, but it isn’t. Having to use an actual quote would have made this mistake impossible.
I wasn’t trying for any gotchas, my point was—and remains—that in this case the word “improvement” is likely to be understood differently by different people.
I am not passing any moral judgments or making insinuations about anyone’s character.
By the way, if you’re aiming for accuracy, the verb Gleb used was “cringe”. You chose to render it as “reluctance” which, I think, also changes the flavour albeit in another direction. It’s up to you to decide whether cringing and still writing “would reflect negatively on his character” :-P
that sounds like 2 not 1. yes. Now what (should be done)?