I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it?
That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community".
I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is:
"The hacker community is the stuff I approve of"
In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics.
The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects."
Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics.
It's a state of mind....
It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole.
To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack.
Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad.
Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like.
I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...
Who decides what is right Christianity or Islam or Buddhism? These questions dog every religious faith, every philosophy. Is it any surprise we have such argument in the theoretical "hacker community." Understand, your clash with Goldstien and others is not about definitions or who decides but rather core beliefs. They have one belief about the hacker community you have another. Their language "Others" you. Which means it places you on the outside as an alien. You language in a mirror way Others them. In my opinion, both sides need to respect the point of view of the Other. Not reject it. See the philosophy of Levinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas
I'm not suggesting I know what is the "correct" way of portraying the Hacker community.. I'm suggesting nobody knows.
I'm also suggesting that Emmanuel seems to think he knows how to precisely define the Hacker community. That's the impression I personally get, maybe I misunderstand.
Comparing it to Christianity (etc) is probably reasonable... "Christianity" is a term that envelops a shocking variety of practices and beliefs....some completely contradictory..
Though I disagree with him, I'd encourage him to speak his mind about it...I think this sort of discussion is good.
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression, I don't think him speaking is counter-productive, I think his "strategy" of trying to distance this sort of vandalism from hacking is....especially since it's something that has always been a part of hacker culture, or at least has had ties to it and evolved along side of it.
That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community".
I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is:
"The hacker community is the stuff I approve of"
In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics.
The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects."
Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics.
It's a state of mind....
It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole.
To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack.
Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad.
Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like.
I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...