Yesterday, I linked to a story from Samantha Bielefeld, in which she respectfully and eloquently disagreed with Marco Arment concerning the viability of the patronage model for independent developers. I would’ve left it at that, but as it turns out, she’s really been facing a considerable amount of abuse from Arment and his followers. Yesterday, John C. Welch published a (rather rantish) overview of some of the public tweets going back and forth, which were already pretty bad, but apparently, the private emails and messages Bielefeld received were way, way worse.
I’m new to the idea of writing for an audience, and certainly inexperienced when it comes to receiving hundreds of hurtful emails in response. A word of wisdom to female writers out there; if you publish something negative about Marco, you will receive threats of rape, and physical harm.
I hope Bielefeld doesn’t quit writing – even though I would completely understand if she did – because this industry desperately needs people who aren’t white, male, well-off, 20-40, and straight. Less people like myself, please.
I’ll let Bielefeld take it away.
Marco, I’ve never argued that your success fell into your lap. You worked for years to get to where you are now, and you’ve earned your following. I do stand by my belief that your position gives you an immediate leg up, even when it isn’t warranted. My article on Wednesday only came to be because of a statement I made when reviewing Overcast 2.0. I said that I was pleased to see your attempt at a patronage model, and this led to many developers reaching out to me, to inform me of the broader discussion, and their disgust that you would attempt to categorize yourself alongside them. So why don’t you just do us all a favor, and start acknowledging yourself as the arrogant, privileged rich guy with a huge advantage that we all know you to be? After all, you did earn it.
…wondering why such criticisms have to always come down to “privilege.” Don’t like the model, argue against it. Don’t like her response, argue against it. Dismissing a white man’s positions or a well off persona’s position because of demographics would be like… oh I don’t know, dismissing a woman’s opinion because she’s a woman. But of course, you’ll have to excuse my inability to see beyond my clearly limited perspective here.
His well-off position is the CRUX of the entire argument re:patronage model. OF COURSE it’s important.
Well maybe we should just ban people of means from creating open source software. After all, they’re giving stuff away that’s depriving poor developers from being able to monetize their work. If that logic applies to wealthy people, then it applies to everyone. It’s an old play on the “they’re taking our jobs!†BS. Accept this time instead of targeting immigrants it’s targeting affluent, tech-savy, white guys. Who would have imagined there would be an internet backlash?!!
Your missing the point. Patronage may work for Arment because he already has a significant personal following. Bielefeld argues – and I personally agree – that it won’t work for the ‘average’ developer that lacks said following.
All people have been saying was that Marco had the privilege of fame and fortune.
Patronage doesn’t provide a good income if you don’t have followers to begin with. Marco’s comments on its viability show a lack of understanding, and that’s presumably because he doesn’t understand what it would be like to launch a crowdsourced project without that support.
Why can’t people make that criticism? And how on earth do you make the leap from criticizing your lack of tolerance for the label “privileged” to banning people from making open source software?
Then work hard and acquire those followers. Maybe release some good stuff for free in order to build your reputation.
Is not like Marco woke-up in a morning and suddenly found himself famous. He worked hard for it.
And then AFTER he worked hard for it, he acquired further success through patronage. Pleased with the success of this patronage, he lauded its feasibility for others.
But he was wrong, he was speaking from a position of privilege, that sure, he had earned elsewhere if you really want to pick nits (although other people have worked harder and not attained that success).
He didn’t understand how much more difficult it would be for other developers to make patronage work. That’s true, it’s accurate, and how hard he worked has nothing to do with how wrong he is about patronage being viable for most developers.
And none of that has anything to do with his gender or race, which wasn’t even mentioned until andrewclunn brought it up by complaining that it wasn’t relevant and people shouldn’t be mentioning it.
Exactly, Samantha and her friends found their business model disrupted and now cry for help. Sorry, life is tough, adapt or die.
They were used to their little walled garden of the App Store, which can’t go on forever.
A lot of proprietary software developers probably disappeared when they couldn’t compete with Free software, I didn’t shed a tear for them as I won’t shed any for Samantha, as I won’t shed any for Marco when *his* model will get disrupted.
Yes, but let’s leave out his race, sex and orientation, because quite frankly, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Elton John all have far more wealth and influence than I (or pretty much anyone else reading this) will ever have.
Bielefeld’s demographic came up in the context of responding to rape threats.
The discussion never turned to Marco’s race, age, and sexual orientation until a handful of people projected that it did, presumably because you all have huge chips on your shoulders.
Hey, don’t you know that stereotyping is bad? Except when liberals do it, of course. Which means you can go on forums like this and talk shit about white males, the rich, police officers, Christians, southerners, etc. until your fingers get sore from typing, and nobody cares. (And god help you if you happen to be more than one of these.)
But if you dare utter one criticism against one of the Left’s protected groups, the SJWs will be all over you like a pack of wild dogs on a 3-legged cat. Accusations of being an ‘-ist’ or a ‘-phobe’ will soon follow; doesn’t matter if your criticisms have any validity or not.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Edited 2015-10-16 19:03 UTC
Hey, you shouldn’t streotype three legged cats in this manor. Three legged cats deserve a chance when dog brawls too.
Really? Pray tell us when these “SJWs” started attacking Marco Arment like a pack of wild dogs on a 3-legged cat, and how the response (with threats of rape and physical harm) to Samantha’s article is not ironically what you’re talking about.
Someone writes an article and it’s SJWs on a rampage to you, but you don’t bat an eyelid at the responses Samantha got. Seriously, Samantha’s article is SJW wild dogs, while the threatening responses are 3-legged cats?
It’s more like if you dare utter one criticism against people who are well off and you anti-SJWs will be all over them like a pack of wild dogs on a 3-legged cat.
Self-awareness people. You look like an idiot when you lack it.
And of course, only Bielefeld’s demographics were mentioned, and only in the context of the reduction in diversity if she decided to quit writing in response to rape threats.
Marco’s demographic never even came up beyond “rich and well known”, until a bunch of people stormed in to defend the three legged cat from the “SJWs'” imaginary bigotry.
Edited 2015-10-17 02:54 UTC
I wasn’t aware that Marco was making the kind of criticisms I was talking about. If he had, I’m sure they’d be petitioning Apple to have all of his apps removed from the App store.
Again, here we see an excellent example of anti-SJW pre-emptive martyrdom. Really, it’s funny how anti-SJWs behave worse than what they accuse the mythical SJWs of behaving.
You have no problem with people threatening Samantha in an effort to silence her, but you have a problem with a non-existent reality about SJWs that hasn’t happened.
LOL, non-existent. Go on Reddit or a similar site where SJWs assimilate in large numbers; make some sweeping criticisms about any of the groups I listed, and then do the same for any of the Left’s protected groups. See which of your comments get upvoted/downvoted and then come back and tell me if I’m wrong. Go ahead, do it… I double dare you. You see my original post here got modded down, which only proves my point.
If you don’t know what the point is yet, it’s not about who is attacking who. It’s about blatant hypocrisy. These people will cry and scream all day about how stereotyping is wrong and that you shouldn’t judge a whole group of people based on some bad apples. That is, at least until THEY do it. Hell, they practically threw all gamergaters under the bus and labeled them all woman-hating, man children.
Edited 2015-10-17 19:43 UTC
But all gamer gaters are women hating man children.
You are confusing gamer-gaters with gamers.
Edited 2015-10-17 20:01 UTC
Right, just like all Muslims are terrorists, and all single, black mothers are welfare queens. /s
See? I can stereotype too.
Or, you’re confusing “gamer gaters” with “gamers”. Just like I said.
Nope. I am neither a gamer nor a gamer gater, but I do know several people who are both, and none of them are woman haters or man children. Watching these people get lumped in by SJWs (including several prominent tech bloggers that like to fancy themselves as journalists but are anything but) with the 12yos who were sending death threats is why I brought up gamer gaters.
So it appears your stereotyping is about as accurate as mine.
Edited 2015-10-18 01:21 UTC
Every time a writer like Samantha gets threats because of things they write and then people come in and pre-emptively talk about SJWs, they are knowingly give shelter to them, so they lump themselves in by that very act.
No. A lot of us are just sick and tired of having discussions derailed because a couple of trolls in a basement somewhere sent a death threat.
The best way to deal with the Internet troll in the basement is to ignore him. Politicians do that all the time, why can’t people like Thom do that?
If anything, running a site like OSNews should kind of make it clear that if you have an opinion on something, then there will be people out there that take it personal. Primitive people react to that by sending out an empty death threat. They have been doing that since the dawn of time.
Edited 2015-10-18 03:16 UTC
And a lot of us are sick and tired of the terms “SJW” and “feminazis” to drown out even the most rational of voices pre-emptively.
Samantha writes about an obvious point. Thom writes something in support. And suddenly according to the likes of you, that’s SJWs being like dogs after a 3 legged cat.
In all fairness, I thought Samantha had a good point. (Although I’ve seen the patronage model used as a defense as to why we should eliminate the DMCA, as if it would work for everyone.) I don’t think the whole ‘SJW’ discussion would’ve started had it not been for Thom’s remark about white males.
If a remark that is 100% true triggers a bunch of people to spout nonsense, that’s not my fault.
It was not 100% true. It was your opinion, and a rather racist one at that. It’s like saying ‘we don’t need any more black males in basketball.’
Edited 2015-10-19 03:58 UTC
Asking for more diversity is racist?
That is literally the most retarded thing I’ve heard in months, and I watched the Republican debates, so that’s saying something. My mind is reeling from the utter and total stupidity of that statement.
Asking for less white males is racist? It absolutely is. And sexist as well.
Firstly, it’s fewer white males. Secondly, that’s not what Thom said. As you well know.
I never stated such a thing. The term SJW means different things to different people (not exactly a well-defined dictionary word), so I try not to use that word.
We have a saying in Danish, which roughly translated to English is “the way you yell in the woods is how you get your answer”. When Thom starts trolling by bringing white 30-40 year old people into the discussion on empty death threats on the Internet, two things happens:
1) A lot of people gets pissed because he just derailed the original discussion (on whether its reasonable to expect developers to be able to afford a MacBook Pro). This prompts lots of people to throw the SJW term at him.
2) Lots of “white 30-40 year olds” like myself gets annoyed because we are now being dragged into a discussion we have nothing to do with. They mostly go WTF!? (see the posts about accusing Thom of being a racist)
As for Samantha, when you start calling people “arrogant rich” and virtually only left out ‘assholes’ at the end, then too, expect to get equally trolling replies.
…what
All I said was: “I hope she keeps on writing because this industry needs more people like her”. This is well-known, established fact. This industry – and especially technology bloggers – are almost exclusively white, rich males, aged 20-40. This is fact. I personally believe this is detrimental to the industry, and that the industry would benefit greatly from more people who aren’t any of that to join in and also have their say.
How on EARTH can that be perceived as bad? Why does having a desire for more diversity – in gaming, in tech, in anything – trigger so many white males aged 20-40 to throw around terms like “SJW” and “OMG YOU ARE BEING RACIST VS WHITE MEN OMG” (the most idiotic thing of all time)? Where is this coming from? Insecurity? A desire to remain on top? A lack of self-confidence?
Help me out here!
Because it is off-topic for the discussion. It is like if every time someone mentions nurses I would add a paragraph about how there are more female nurses and we need more diversity. Or each time a terrorist bomb explodes someone would type “the majority of terrorists are Muslims”.
In both cases true (just like your statement), but also really derailing for any other discussions related to nurses or why terrorists blow things up. The racist comments (note: I don’t believe you are one) appear because you have singled out this particlar issue as important amongst many other similar issues in the world.
Narcissism. Spoilt little shits who can’t accept that it’s not about them.
Clap clap clap
Would you trust a rich white male conservative southern Christian police officer if you weren’t a rich white male conservative southern Christian?
Would you trust a poor black male in the ghetto if you weren’t a poor black male in the ghetto?
Racist douche.
… but enough about yourself.
I think a lot of the so-called “20 – 30 year old white males” on the Internet are in reality 12 year olds in their mothers’ basements. I guess their thinking is – “why push kids around in the playground when you can troll people online?”.
Edited 2015-10-16 19:16 UTC
I’m gay, 52 and black. So should I start blogging?
If you eloquently state what you wish to say, please do. Present in a way that brings people back to read a blog over and over again.
Can Thom stop targeting white people. Singling out any ethnicity is racism in my book.
Exactly!
“this industry desperately needs people who aren’t white, male, well-off, 20-40, and straight.”
It’s even worse because it’s also targeting men and NATURAL SEXUAL ALIGNMENT. As though somehow that was a problem. Let’s see how long an all-gay world lasts. There is far too much anti-white, anti-men and anti-straight people crap being spread about like a disease.
How coherent! Way to go!
Also, define NATURAL. Mind you, “what I think is” is not a valid definition…
Natural sexual alignment? Homosexuals and bisexuals are as natural as heterosexuals – less common, sure, but still natural and seen in a number of species.
BTW homosexuals can have children too so don’t know what you are ranting about.
Thom’s was a call for more diversity.
Calling for more diversity is not being “anti” anything.
People seem to have difficulty even parsing sentences it seems.
Are you referring to yourself? He stated specifically what he didn’t want. That’s anti. Get it?
You’re insane.
I’ve read through the blog and the discussions following both here and on twitter and I still don’t understand what this is all about. Why is this ranting relevant? Are these people important somehow? I think I’m missing the point.
So you’re worked up about blog post on the intarwebs? Hahaha. Nobody cares in the real world. So no, not important.
Ah great
Then I can put it to rest and resume my casual browsing. Thank you!
Cool. It’s not about you, so not important. Thank fuck.
I don’t know who those people might be who are crazy enough to threaten anyone for some tech opinion piece especially when she is totally right. I probably fit those properties of 20-40 white male tech persons, however, Samantha Bielefeld’s opinions are pretty lined up to those of my own. Fortunately don’t personally know anyone who’d disagree, which means I have been quite successful in choosing proper friends and acquaintances.
If Marco Arment doesn’t categorically hold off his minions then he belongs to the same loonybin they live in.
Most of the original story surrounded someone putting his opinion on the internet. Somehow that converts into everyone having to take it personally (whether or not that are directly affected by the comments or not).
Don’t agree with his view, fine. Agree? Fine. Don’t resort to attacking or shouting down others.
As my mother used to tell me “just because you raised your voice didn’t make you right, it just meant people stopped listening”
I am white, male and 44. Why should I feel in any way ‘lucky’ or ‘privileged’?. I have worked BLOODY HARD all my life, made sacrifices and taken risks. I am lucky to have a good income and a roof over my head. I’m sick of being told I have it all my own way and got all the breaks because of my gender and skin colour. That is BS !
Why is it so hard to understand that being white and male gives you inbuilt advantages? That doesn’t mean that you haven’t worked hard and that you don’t deserve whatever success you’ve had, but you still had it easier than someone who isn’t white or male.
Edited 2015-10-20 16:14 UTC
This whole saga is an unimportant decision followed by a chain of over reactions. The result is a load of morons talking themselves and each other too seriously. Lighten up. Go outside.
Every time.
If you consider yourself such a stupid, evil privileged wrongdoer, quit.
And spare us your nonsense.
Quit, and I hope she quits too.
It does need fewer stupid, weak, cucks (cuckoldry) like you.
It does need people concerned with truth, even if inconvenient or unpleasant.
What is true or false, good or evil? You don’t care as long as a diverse, inclusive group are imposing evil
You added the “stupid”, “evil”, and “wrongdoer” all by yourself.
Which is quite, quite telling, and endlessly hilarious.