Who's shrill, and does it matter?
We had another round of "Notes sucks!" rebuttals recently when Rod Boothby claimed that he could replace Notes with, effectively, a trained monkey. He was promptly slapped down by dozens of people, both in comments on his own blog and in their own blogs. Nothing terribly surprising, given that Rod's post (and it's modified - twice - version, and it's subsequent siblings) was mind-numbingly inaccurate. As I have said many times, aggressive stupidity deserves no respect. So far, so normal.
The interesting thing, to me, is that ex-Loti and current Microsofty (that can't be the preferred term, can it? Would Redmondian be better?) Cliff Reeves posted a defense of Rod, bound tightly with a lecture on the proper way for a community to respond to criticism. Why is that interesting to me? It's my background in political blogging rearing it's ugly head, I'm afraid.
Cliff's contention is that the online Lotus community responded (and, in general, always does respond) too quickly, too passionately, and too emotionally. One specific word he used in a comment that further explained his position, in fact, is shrill. That particular word has been used primarily by conservatives to cast liberals who are passionate about a topic in as negative a light as possible. Conservatives who speak with emotion are referred to in complimentary terms, using words like passionate, intense, committed, and devoted. Liberals, on the other hand, are labeled shrill.
What is implied by shrillness? Well, a shrill voice is strident and high-pitched. Feminine. Or effeminate. In other words, men who are considered shrill are being subtly called girly men. Either that or fags. The really fascinating part of the label game is that if one responds to being called shrill, one is proving the other side's point. No matter what the response, the opponent has already won.
Note: I don't know Cliff Reeves from Adam. Never met the man, and have no desire to imply that his character is anything other than sterling (heck, for all I know he's a Liberal, which would make him infallible, right? heh). I'm not suggesting he's using the term "shrill" in the way conservative bloggers use it. I simply noticed the choice of label, and my admittedly twisted brain drew connections to its use in political blogging.
I do have to point out that I have personally always considered the group of ex-Loti who now work for Microsoft to be the most bitter and defensive community online. I have also always believed that their bitterness had its roots in genuine passion for Lotus the company and Notes the product, and legitimate anger at the way both were treated by IBM at various points. For that reason, I've always just quietly nodded and passed over their negativity without comment. I've never called them shrill and I won't do so now. I don't think their reactions are surprising or all that terrible.
As for the response from the online Notes world? I'll take a passionate, intense, committed and devoted Notes community every time, thanks very much.
| Permalink | 
- 
Comments
Really today to be an intelligent free independent thinker you almost have to learn the coded language of major political groups to prevent them from encoding secret messages inside you. These little coded morsels really are software viruses to be planted in us. Its hard to believe just a few words can deliver a payload of negative or positive impressions beyond common logic. These primal pings meant to push our decision making at key points such as before a major purchase or at the voting booth.
Posted by BV At 04:00:50 PM On 10/16/2006 | - Website - |