The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better, but I still see people confusing the two. Yes you've got a right to be rude, you've also got a right to blather on for two hours about Dragonball Z. Both behaviours will leave adults concluding that you're not capable of mature discussion. And if you and your mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30.

If, on the other hand, you want an intelligent conversation about tech and startups with the largest number of intelligent people, I suggest that we should all talk a bit more like Paul Graham and a bit less like a 14-year old playing Call of Duty (or, for that matter, Linus Torvalds)

Young men are the only group to whom you can arbitrarily assign a negative stereotype without encountering any backlash it seems. In my opinion similarly aged female social groups are often just as excluding of people - though not, perhaps, in the same way.

I have no problem with the idea that in this community, Paul Graham is the best role model for communication. But let's not pretend that the place is flawed purely because of it's demographic.

You make a very good point. There are other groups e.g. bankers, but they tend to be privileged groups. This point was made to me quite memorably this Christmas. A local group was collecting presents for orphans. I brouyght in two boxes for kids the same age as my daughter. In the whole community, 14-16 year old boys got one box. Next year, I plan to get something for them (if only I can figure out what a 14-16 year old would like that doesn't require power and will fit in a shoebox).

The 14-year old CoD player is, however, not just a stereotype, but pretty much the archetype of what happens in online communities that don't self-police behaviour. The standard of discourse engages in a race to the bottom, where shouting beats listening.

This isn't necessary, even in Shooters: I used to play Unreal in an online community back in the day, and the chat was friendly ("played", or "well played" was one of the standard things you said when you got shot). Even the taunts were actually funny (often Monkey Island references). However, that's a long time ago: I don't find online shooters a fun place to hang out anymore.

I agree completely. (I accidentally downvoted you, sorry.)

> The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better

"Anti-social" behavior according to whom and to what extent and for what purpose? For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility?

> I still see people confusing the two.

There is no confusion. People want to be themselves and want a culture to cater to that. Instead you want a culture that caters to your needs. Which is fine, but that is no global definition of what that is and how to implement it. The idea that everyone and every community should conform to these feminizing norms is highly flawed. And is totally arbitrary.

> Both behaviours will leave adults concluding

Massive generalization. Adults, eh? Fuck you for calling any ideals that don't conform to your to be childish.

> mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30.

The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society. That's what religions attempt to do, and fail all the time doing. There are no ideals that fit every community or even all of society. To attempt to create such ideals is essentially social engineering. It's the purview of totalitarians.

> intelligent conversation about tech and startups

Fuck you for calling people who don't conform to your norms unintelligent.

You're right. Everything is relative and you can do whatever you want, exactly as the poster whom you've responded to but completely ignored pointed out. The point is that he's calling on people to either match his values, or else risk losing his favor and those of the communities he mentioned. You may not care much, but the evidence of the downvotes on your comment suggests that the HN community agrees with him and not you. So you may find that your message of exclusion ironically helps to effect your own exclusion from a community that you apparently care about, since you're posting here.

>feminizing men

The thing with edgy, weird opinions like that is that it's unlikely that you hold them because you're wiser than prevailing wisdom. Apparently, Real Men antagonise strangers over the internet.

You're new here, so you may think people are downvoting you for what you're saying. They're really downvoting you for how you say it. We try to put a premium on being civil.

You're right (and it's one of the reasons I enjoy reading HN) but it's kind of ironic in this context, isn't it?

We're all so good at not telling people to STFU and what-not, but we still have enumerable troubles with entire discussions not being derailed into hate-fests, albeit with some uncharacteristically (for an internet discussion) polite language.

Something to think about.

For what it's worth, your post made me realize how much of a polite hater I was being in my post above.

I am thinking about it. Not sure what to do about it, though.

You tried to defend yourself in this post, but I think you accidentally ended up making his point for him.

> For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility?

Grow up.

> The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society.

The point is your group is flawed, and that flaw legitimately keeps newcomers out and cause well-intentioned contributors to leave. There's absolutely no reason why the community should have the stance "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Competition is only going to make you better. Taking the time to help someone will also help you. Having the support of your peers for being courteous does far more for you in the long-run than intimidating them into submission does. But I guess that's "feminizing men" vs. holding them accountable as not only adults but as advocates and respectable members of the community.

Expletives were uncalled for, judging by your comment history you can do much better than that.

Thank you for writing your point in a manner the reinforces your point. I have given your point a point.

I think you're conflating criticism and being mean. It's quite possible to offer kind, empathetic criticism, which I would argue is more effective. When the person receiving criticism doesn't see it as an attack, he/she is far more likely to listen to it.

It is the difference between some drunk on the street yelling at you about your behavior or one of your friends sitting you down on a park bench and saying "we've been friends for a long while and I think you need to hear a couple of things..."

Are you sure his problem was really criticism? I think that his problem was rather that people were making value judgements about his character in a manner that what he felt was unfair.

There's a wide gap between giving objective, straightforward criticism and being insulting. The latter is not necessary to get one's point across. The latter is also what Linus did, and what many in the programming community encourage, under the guise of being the former. You don't need to be a bully to give pointed criticism. The fact that people don't seem to get this, and rabidly defend terrible behavior, is discouraging.

The fact that something is 'artificial' (i.e. a product of art, essentially) does not mean it is 'arbitrary' (i.e. just a product of freedom or authority -arbitrium-). Do not take social norms as 'arbitrary': they usually have deeper meanings than what we usually assume.

I am not saying you are obviously wrong. I complain about the 'arbitrary'.

In Western cultures, educated criticism is always enveloped in smoothness, and language is an important part of this envelope. This is not evolutionary, it is cultural and we do it because, in the long term, society has noticed that this is useful.

Academia is the classical example of this: one may hate his colleague in the same Department, and also his ideas, but one is not going to bully him linguistically in a paper. Because the time spent in explaining the insults is not worth it.

Unless one is a simple bully, obviously. But this is not the usual state of affairs.

> We have as much right to defend the behavior as you have to attack it. It's an arbitrary questions of norms and of tolerance to criticism. In modern society it seems that we're so isolated and insecure in ourselves that we can't handle criticism and meanness.

Criticism means something in particular though, namely being critical of something.

Being critical of an idea does not mean insulting the person who proposed the idea, rather it means replying to the idea with intelligent commentary and feedback. There is rarely cause to be uncivil in providing criticism, and indeed doing such frequently closes doors to communication.

> A healthy level of tolerance of criticism is necessary for any sort of critical culture. Without it disasters like the nuclear disaster in Japan occur. Where everyone is trying to be so polite and get along that obvious problems go unsolved because criticism is not brought to bear on the right people at the right time.

Indeed this is true, but I think the overall feel in this thread is that the technical community frequently confuses criticism with outright personal attacks. In the very least, legitimate criticism is frequently mixed with verbal abuse, which adds nothing to the discourse.

> Yes there are limits to what is acceptable and not overdoing it. But then there is also a need for tolerance of criticism to an extent and perhaps if there is enough confidence a rebuttal to criticism.

A good engineer is one who accepts criticism, for that is how one improves. But if I am doing a code review, I would not tolerate someone questioning my history of career decisions when judging if my software architecture is correct.

I would not tolerate it because it is not on task, nor does it have a point or purpose.

There are times when bringing up the topic of someone's credentials or personal history is relevant, but even then there is no need to be disrespectful about it.

Now there are of course sometimes when more forceful language is called for, such as when personal or public safety is at stake, or when the future of a company is on the line. I would say that under those conditions, one should still do their best to communicate in a civil fashion, and then slowly escalate language used as is appropriate.