Couldn't agree more - these posts reveal far more about the author than the subjects anyway.

I think you are taking this very seriously and defensively, when it was not written as a serious attack on anyone or a way to hurt or boost anyone's ego. It was written as a silly piece that pokes fun at startup culture and startup culture enthusiasts, much like my last piece on long shadow design poked fun at design trends and design trend enthusiasts (and there were still some people who took it seriously and got mad, as usual).

I think your argument on constructiveness/value is hugely off-base though. It makes no sense at all and carries no weight. What do you even mean by merit or value? What kinds of writing or satire do have merit or value? What writing is "fluff" and what isn't? These are terms that are so thoroughly opinion based and loosely defined for you that this criticism means nothing at all. If you are going to make an argument against something then claim that it's well-articulated, it should be logical and rational. Let me try to draw a parallel.

So let's say there's this song you really hate, and you are like "man, this song is the worst", and someone else who likes the song disagrees. You might make the argument "well, it just sounds bad to me, it's a fluff song and has no value". The other person can disagree and say it's a great song and means a lot to them. The fact is that the song is not intrinsically good or bad, you are the one forming an opinion on whether the song is good or bad. And you can battle opinion v. opinion for decades and get nowhere unless you have logical reasons supporting your opinion. For example, "I don't like this song because I'm generally not a fan of indie music", or "I don't like this song because I don't like songs in a minor key", or "I do not like this song because the tones are very dissonant, and that's not something my ears are happy with". If you said that, the other person could reply, "oh that's fine, not everybody likes it" and then there would be no argument.

So let's break down your well-articulated point.

• This is just fluff (meaningless insult, like "you just suck")
• You are trying to group people so you can mock them (false, you don't know what my goals were. this was not one of them)
• Only tangentially related to design (who cares, lots of posts here are tangentially related)
• Not doing anything constructive (you just made this up. a lot of people enjoyed reading it)
• You don't see any merit or value (what does this even mean?)
• If you are wrong you will admit it, but you don't think you are (is there honestly anything I could say that would get you to admit you were wrong? can you think of a single thing?)

I think the best response I have for you is that this was not a serious, angry, attacking post made as a result of me wanting to mock and injure people. It was a silly, lighthearted comedic piece. The intent is for you to read it and be like "hah, i know people like that, they are ridiculous", and move on. This was the reaction I got from most people who talked to me about the article. That being said, I understand that with any opinion or piece of comedy, there are people who disagree and/or don't like it, and that's fine with me. I'm sorry that you spent your time reading this and didn't like it, but that's just something that happens in life from time to time.

You're right, I just think that the less stereotypes there are, the better.

scenesters don't need drinks