What's the point of stuff like this? Just like calling someone a hipster, it comes off as a smug way to put "those other people" in a box so you can mock them more easily and feel superior. I'm not denying that people like this exist, but this article is kind of pointless.
I'm not denying that you took time to express your opinion against the article, but this comment is kind of pointless.
Additional note: This is satire (https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+satire). It's a style of writing that's been around for a while. Not to be taken too personally.
My point, which I think I articulated fairly well, is that this is just fluff. You see a group of people you don't like and proposed a way to lump them all together so you can mock them. This post is only tangentially related to design and it's not doing anything constructive. Would you not agree? Is there some merit or value I'm missing? If I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit it, but I don't think I am.
This isn't a personal attack on you as a person, you're probably a nice guy. I just would like to see designers get off their high horses and quit writing posts like this. Nothing good comes of it and we'd all be better off if we just focused on leading by example and making improvements and positive changes where possible.
And I don't think I'm out of line questioning and criticizing. I think if anything our industry could use a little less back patting and more criticism.
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.
MY GOD INCLUDE A TL;DR NEXT TIME JEFF
I know you meant it as a fun, light-hearted post, but it's important to consider our motivations, too.
Since you've identified this piece as satire, it's hard to believe you when you say your intent wasn't to mock. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire):
"Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement."
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the stereotype you describe exists, but why make fun of them? If your intent is to shame them into improvement, then own up to that. My opinion is that this piece isn't effective as satire. If that's not your intent, then this really only exists so that we can chuckle while we reaffirm to ourselves that we aren't one of the sad, clueless people you've described. That may feel nice for a moment, but is it constructive?
Would it help if I added at the end "If you are one of these people, you should be ashamed of yourself, and actually learn a skill that's relevant to technology and do something good for the world"?
If so I'd be happy to add that, but I thought this was kind of the assumed undertone of the whole piece, and it would be heavy-handed to explicitly explain it.
I thought satire was what The Onion does, i.e. parody? What you wrote doesn't seem like satire, just regular humorous writing. Still funny though!
I agree, it's just destructively putting people down.
So there are people who are really into startups but don't produce much. What's the issue?
There's no issue. I don't understand why my hater commenter section thinks that there's an issue or an agenda. You caught my point - that there are quite a number of people that are super into startups, found startups all the time, and have zero skills that can be used to make anything. I think that's crazy, so I wrote a satire piece about it.
You're right, I just think that the less stereotypes there are, the better.
You probably want to stay away from stand-up comedy then…
Maybe it's a NYC thing, but there are an INSANE amount of these types of people at every hackathon, meetup, event, etc. What I got out of this post is that action speaks way stronger than words. There are a certain number of people out there who are exactly as described, and at the end of the day, you have to stop talking at one point and just go build it (granted, we're a community of designers and developers, so this may not be as relevant to us).
go away liang
i'm never buying you a drink again.
scenesters don't need drinks
Funny. I don't know whats more entertaining — the article or watching people whine about it.
Whoop, there it is.
Guilty as charged haha