-
But people stand in line for them when the latest is to be released
When did you last see that happen in any significant amount? The lines have largely, quietly disappeared, as Apple expanded online preordering (with delivery on launch day), as well as allowing online iPhone reservations. (Both of which they did before COVID, for context.) The lines, while sorta cool as marketing, are a logistical nightmare for the stores, and annoying for most customers.
Ah you took it literally, where it was meant metaphorically. The cult of the need to own the latest iPhone, no matter the cost. Similar to if you are not wearing Nike's, you don't belong, etc. -
Frankly, diehard fans like that make up a tiny percentage of any of those brands’ customers. And the people who whine about those diehard fans are mostly just diehard fans of competing brands who are annoyed that their preferred brand doesn’t get that kind of attention. (Or people who think they’re somehow better than everyone else because they don’t succumb to marketing — or so they think.)
-
Sure we are all susceptible to some form of marketing or another, but some way more then others.
This, for me has nothing to do with being better, but it is just an observation of human behavior, and you can't deny that it is a fair share of the population that feels the need to own branded stuff just to belong. There is also a thing called peer pressure, where it is forced upon you, and when you don't give in, you are shunned. This is a serious problem in schools. Kids can be very cruel in these matters.
And don't get me wrong, this is no whining about things. It is curiosity. -
Sure we are all susceptible to some form of marketing or another, but some way more then others.
I agree with all of that.
This, for me has nothing to do with being better, but it is just an observation of human behavior, and you can't deny that it is a fair share of the population that feels the need to own branded stuff just to belong. There is also a thing called peer pressure, where it is forced upon you, and when you don't give in, you are shunned. This is a serious problem in schools. Kids can be very cruel in these matters.
And don't get me wrong, this is no whining about things. It is curiosity.
<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reason other than being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and that good products exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant> -
<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reason other than being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and that good products exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant>
That I can understand
I myself have used and played with several Apple products throughout my live, but never bought any. Never felt the need for what they bring, and this just depends on my particular use case of computers, tablets and smartphones. Had some Apple II's and early Mac's donated to me but gave them away when we moved to France.
My first computer experience was with TRS-80's and DAI's. The latter were used as a teaching aid in the school I went to, and were called "Ai a DAI" by many referring to the fact they were not Apples, TRS-80's or other know brands of the time. The school also had one of those blue Intel MDS machines. So the bashing of brands is nothing new
-
<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reason other than being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and that good products exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant>
True.
Branding is orthogonal to the product quality. If I weren't using Linux or BSD, or if I were back doing Photoshop/Illustrator stuff, I'd prefer a Mac instead of a Windows machine. Macs are good tools for many things, and so is Windows, too. The brand thing is completely separate, in my opinion.
But I do insist on taking this further, including personal brands in this. You can have a nice guy, expert in some fields, who makes an inane assertion or deliberate choice in building their own brand or managing publicity. You have to be able to criticize them for it, or you indeed are being directed by the brand and not the observable behaviour.
With politicians, this goes to the extreme. I don't know how things are where you all are living, but here, politicians words and their voting actions are two completely different things, and trying to point out the difference here gets me labeled as an extremist, or supporter of their opponents. It is quite depressing, really, how people just seem to accept or ignore this, "because they're a good person" or something along those lines. -
<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reason other than being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and that good products exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant>
True.
Branding is orthogonal to the product quality. If I weren't using Linux or BSD, or if I were back doing Photoshop/Illustrator stuff, I'd prefer a Mac instead of a Windows machine. Macs are good tools for many things, and so is Windows, too. The brand thing is completely separate, in my opinion.
But I do insist on taking this further, including personal brands in this. You can have a nice guy, expert in some fields, who makes an inane assertion or deliberate choice in building their own brand or managing publicity. You have to be able to criticize them for it, or you indeed are being directed by the brand and not the observable behaviour.
With politicians, this goes to the extreme. I don't know how things are where you all are living, but here, politicians words and their voting actions are two completely different things, and trying to point out the difference here gets me labeled as an extremist, or supporter of their opponents. It is quite depressing, really, how people just seem to accept or ignore this, "because they're a good person" or something along those lines.
Branding is NOT orthogonal to product quality, but is somewhat independent.
Product quality is also very difficult to judge. The vast majority of us spend the vast majority of our time in one or another ecosystem and become very familiar with how to operate in that environment. That way of operation is then indeed the best for you. Highest quality for you. Regardless of any intrinsic value. And there is always the variation in tasking. Each of the major ecosystems has advantages for some specific tasks. If those are what you do, that ecosystem is gets "quality" points. -
With politicians, this goes to the extreme. I don't know how things are where you all are living, but here, politicians words and their voting actions are two completely different things, and trying to point out the difference here gets me labeled as an extremist, or supporter of their opponents. It is quite depressing, really, how people just seem to accept or ignore this, "because they're a good person" or something along those lines.
As a multiple citizen, I vote in two countries: USA and Switzerland. The experience couldn’t be more different.
Of course, there are duplicitous politicians here in Switzerland. The big difference is that due to the true direct democracy here, politicians can’t stray too far from what the people (all voters, not just their party’s!) want. At one place I worked here, the CEO of the company (~20 people) is also a politician in the federal parliament. And she said one thing that stuck with me, paraphrased: “If, as a politician here, you want to move things, you can’t do anything too far from what the people want, because then it’ll go to referendum and you, the politician, now have zero say”.
In USA it’s completely different: politicians say whatever their constituents want to hear, and then go do whatever the lobbies pay them to do. There was a famous study (Princeton university, I think) that found that will of the 99% has no measurable impact on policy. It’s a farce basically. -
In USA it’s completely different: politicians say whatever their constituents want to hear, and then go do whatever the lobbies pay them to do. There was a famous study (Princeton university, I think) that found that will of the 99% has no measurable impact on policy. It’s a farce basically.
It's the same in most western democracies actually. Switzerland is an exception. I think Iceland is also more democratic. -
Drifting into politics, but I agree that true democracy is hard to be found, but also rather difficult to uphold. Having to setup a referendum for every decision to be made is hardly doable.
In the Netherlands it has happened that a referendum was taken, but the outcome was not what the politicians expected and they just ignored it. That is democracy at work for you
Branding is NOT orthogonal to product quality, but is somewhat independent.
Product quality is also very difficult to judge. The vast majority of us spend the vast majority of our time in one or another ecosystem and become very familiar with how to operate in that environment. That way of operation is then indeed the best for you. Highest quality for you. Regardless of any intrinsic value. And there is always the variation in tasking. Each of the major ecosystems has advantages for some specific tasks. If those are what you do, that ecosystem is gets "quality" points.
It depends on what you are looking at. Hardware or software. For hardware it is not to hard to test and judge on quality, but software is a whole other ballgame. It definitely depends on what you want from it. To test it you have to have a proper definition of what it is supposed to do, which can mean huge lists of things to test on and try to find bugs in it. In the case of software running on top of an OS, there is yet another factor in the whole judging trajectory.
But I do agree that when it works for you, because of your specific use case, you would rate it at a higher quality then someone for whom it does not work as expected for their specific use case. -
Quote
In the Netherlands it has happened that a referendum was taken, but the outcome was not what the politicians expected and they just ignored it.
In the UK they don't hold a referendum unless they know the result will be the one they want. Unfortunately for us, they were over-confident about the result when it came to Brexit.
-
That’s where Switzerland does it right (IMHO): if enough signatures are collected, then a referendum (rescinding or modifying a law already passed) or initiative (creating a new law) will be held. It doesn’t matter whether politicians like it or not, the process is legally binding.
-
Branding is NOT orthogonal to product quality, but is somewhat independent.
How do you figure? Product quality, regardless of how you define it, is completely independent from marketing. Some of the best quality items don’t advertise at all, and some of the most heavily advertised stuff is utter junk. -
<rant>What’s frustrating (and I get this a LOT as an Apple user) is that people will accuse me of being a brand whore, and then use that opinion as reason to dismiss/ignore all the very real, non-branding explanations that I give for why I prefer using them (or why the company has done something). Somehow they can’t accept that anyone would choose (or defend) Apple for any reason other than being a brand whore. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that different users have different needs and different priorities, and that good products exist for people with those needs and priorities.</rant>
I get this a lot too and it drives me nuts. I've bought a few Apple products over the years but I am in no way loyal to the brand. I like my iPhone, but since day one I've had it in a plain protective case so it's not obvious at a glance what brand it even is. It's been a great phone but I'm not going to promise that my next phone will be Apple. -
Branding is NOT orthogonal to product quality, but is somewhat independent.
Here's why I disagree:
Many large software brands actually consist of acquired software projects, and are not always developed by that brand at all.
Even in open source software, many projects under the same umbrella (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDesktop.org, Gnome, The Apache Foundation, etc.) differ in quality, because they are developed by completely different sets of developers with completely different ideas on what constitutes "good software" or "good quality" anyway.
As time passes, the set of developers and leads slowly change, and the targets and goals vary, leading the software projects themselves to vary in quality. Most of us are familiar with 'bit rot' and 'EEE', when the brand managers' policies change.
On the hardware side, a lot of hardware is sold under a licensed brand. It is common for example for tools (like spanners, screwdrivers, drills) for many brands to be made by the same manufacturer, and then just put into different shells. At one point in time, the tools sold under a specific brand may all be of high quality but low price, then next year, after being licensed at great profit to a different manufactured, all new tools are utter crap.
I do understand that some prefer to describe this as 'somewhat independent', but to me, because it is not obvious before testing each item, and there are items in all quadrants with no universal (only niche-specific) correlation between quality (however you choose to define it) and brand or brand value/appreciation, 'orthogonal' (i.e. completely independent) is the appropriate definition.
_ _ _
The exact definition or qualifier isn't that important, though; I could live with "somewhat independent" just as well.
The utility of a particular tool –– software or hardware –– can be completely independent of ones opinion of the brand of that tool, as well. And this is what tooki and james_s (and others, including CatalinaWOW, if I understood correctly) pointed at: Not everybody uses a specific tool because of their brand, sometimes the tool itself is just very well suited for a particular task and workflow. Not everybody is using a specific tool because of the brand, even if many are. It tends to be the uninformed who pick things based on the brand, and it is annoying to be labeled as an uninformed one just because some of your tools belong to a particular brand.
To me, 'utility' is orthogonal to 'quality' and 'branding', too. Even a low-quality tool can be good enough for a given task. In general terms, 'quality' to me is a complex set of properties reliability, but reliability, robustness, and correctness of results are very prominent in the set. 'Utility' is more about usefulness and ease of use in obtaining a desired effect. As an example, I consider the thin cardboard "wallets" of matches low-quality but useful as always-carry, even though only half of them lit without breaking; and the five-inch long fireplace matches high-quality but not very useful as an always-carry, because they're so large, even though they are easy to lit and can be used in most situations where something needs to be lit on fire. Looking and testing one for how they behave tells me all I care about their properties, and their branding is completely irrelevant to me. (Here in Finland, they often advertise some place or how the manufacturer gives to charity, et cetera; I just don't care.)
When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable! The most annoying thing is that people who think they are not swayed by the brand, seem to be utterly blind to this when it happens to themselves. Sure, the unknowing masses will reject anything coming from a person they dislike, while most scientists and engineers can listen to people in a specific field while ignoring them in other fields; but very few will actually investigate their own opinions to see whether their elevated opinion is based on emotions and beliefs and the brand, instead of the actual work or tool at hand.
In other words, it is much, much easier to ignore a "bad" brand, than acknowledge a "good" brand is based on nothing but marketing, especially if you like some of the products (for brand-unrelated reasons, like utility in a specific task or workflow), or the person.
_ _ _
To circle back at the original topic:
It seems that without personal branding efforts, even a very accomplished developer can be unknown/ignored. How many of you know of DJB, Daniel J. Bernstein, for example?
All of this is in line with what I've written in this thread earlier. To be a "big gun", you need personal branding; otherwise you are ignored.
This in fact is one of the things I've suffered from my entire professional career. All my past colleagues, clients, and immediate superiors have said they're very impressed with my skills and effort, but it has never spread any wider, because it seems my own "brand" is to make things work and then be forgotten. I'm kind of an anti-brand, really. However, it is what it is, and I believe I'm happier being a toolmaker and an enabler instead of a "big gun" anyway. I admit, when I was younger, I was very bitter about this when I finally understood it, but nowadays, I just want to help those others who have the same kind of anti-brand tendencies to recognize the situation, and build the kind of "brand" they want. Probably not into "big gun" territory, but enough so that their career is not negatively impacted by this. My advice thus far has been mostly about communications: how to express oneself and ones work, how to use descriptive language to build mental imagery, how to defuse personal attacks by changing their perception of you, and so on –– because I had to learn, the hard way, all that myself. Others can and will help with marketing, wardrobe, and self-expression.
Now, if only I could be more concise, and express all this without being so darned verbose!
-
When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable!
But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.
You can see this all around.This in fact is one of the things I've suffered from my entire professional career. All my past colleagues, clients, and immediate superiors have said they're very impressed with my skills and effort, but it has never spread any wider, because it seems my own "brand" is to make things work and then be forgotten. I'm kind of an anti-brand, really. However, it is what it is, and I believe I'm happier being a toolmaker and an enabler instead of a "big gun" anyway. I admit, when I was younger, I was very bitter about this when I finally understood it, but nowadays, I just want to help those others who have the same kind of anti-brand tendencies to recognize the situation, and build the kind of "brand" they want. Probably not into "big gun" territory, but enough so that their career is not negatively impacted by this. My advice thus far has been mostly about communications: how to express oneself and ones work, how to use descriptive language to build mental imagery, how to defuse personal attacks by changing their perception of you, and so on –– because I had to learn, the hard way, all that myself. Others can and will help with marketing, wardrobe, and self-expression.
When I was younger I had some dreams about making things that would make me rich, but not so much about becoming famous. During my working life I also received lots of praise for doing a good job, and earned good money, but knew I would never make something so special that it would bring me that big money. I lack the vision for such. I'm good at bringing someone else their idea to life, and that is not where the real money is. Also learned that money is not everything, but it is nice to have enough to live a comfortable enough life. Which is what I'm doing.
Allows me to do the things I like and lend a helping hand where possible. What more do you need in life? -
The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred. To them, any and all defense of the person is idolatry, no matter how factually correct the defense may be. The mere act of defending constitutes idolatry to them; the inaccuracy of their own accusations is irrelevant to them.When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable!
But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.
You can see this all around.
That is a very disingenuous, manipulative way to “debate”, and is essentially gaslighting the person who is actually factually correct. Unfortunately, this is very common.
And it’s often combined with “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations, where the haters will decry every possible outcome, e.g. “Oh, they cut off old devices from the new OS? LAME!” vs. “Oh, so the new OS slows down old devices? LAME!” vs. “Oh, some of the hot new OS features are not available on old devices? LAME!”
It’s irrational hatred, and what the haters often do is assume that your “love” for the brand is as strong as their hatred of it, which I frankly don’t think is the case very often. -
The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred.When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable!
But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.
You can see this all around.
No, I don't think that is the actual problem. I actually feel that that is an emotive argument, borne from the same thing you are describing yourself...
I believe the problem is that too many humans only voice their opinions, instead of examining and explaining the basis of their opinion and reasoning.
Interestingly, this is still the exact same mechanism why one can only become a "big gun" in any career by building oneself into a brand.
The roots of this mechanism are in human sociology and psyche; we are hierarchical social animals, evolved to be this way. Very few humans observe behaviour, and instead rely on "recording" the emotions that the behaviour and interactions they observe creates in them.
This is useful and works for social interaction –– and is exactly how brand-building works ––, but it isn't rational, and it does mean that human expertise and abilities are always secondary to brand-building/social skills.
As to the other thread and me "bashing" anyone, I do believe I have demonstrated here and elsewhere that I do not hate people, I hate specific behaviours. It goes so deep for me that I can, and have, had a very heated argument where I utterly hate someones behaviour, but at the same time, in an unrelated person, am very calmly discussing something else with that same person, often even trying to help them (which surely throws them into a loop, because so few people actually argue about behaviour and opinions instead of people or persons). (Check my past interactions with Simon the moderator, for example.)
Perhaps my characterization in that other thread was poorly worded/described, but I do see it very often and find it utterly deplorable; and do believe that pointing it out in very strong words is always warranted. I even left StackOverflow/StackExchange because of a facet of the same behavioural cluster: "big guns" that refuse to acknowledge any error they make, and assert their "advice" is correct without any basis, even though it leads learners and others completely astray. Instead, they concentrate on the brand-building and social gaming...
In the context of this thread, I probably should just summarise that based on everything I know, becoming a "big gun" is a matter of brand-building, and involves deep human social behaviour that we cannot change, and therefore should not rail against either, but instead accept and try to use as a tool whenever appropriate. This does mean that when observing a "big gun" (or rather, their work product and output) rationally, the fact that they are a "big gun", an authority in their own field, really means absolutely nothing: it does not indicate anything in particular about their work product and output.
At the very core, it boils down to the same (logical) argument why popularity does not correlate with quality or usefulness, no matter how many humans (or flies) disagree. -
Branding and quality are not orthogonal. A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality. Which is reputed because there are some brands based on quality.
The old HP. Craftsman. Snap On. Rolls-Royce. L. L. Bean.
These associations may not last (HP), but at least for some period of time the product, the brand and the marketing are all tied together. And most important, that connection is intentional.
-
Branding and quality are not orthogonal. A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality.
Incorrect. Occasional correlation is not proof of dependence.
When you have brands that at one point in time had good products, and at another point bad products, that itself is proof of orthogonality. It does not mean a correlation is not possible, it just means correlation is not implied.
Whether there is any correlation between a particular brand and some facet or property of its products, depends on other things, especially current leadership (humans in charge of that particular brand).
Technically:
We are using the statistical definition of "orthogonal": statistically independent, with reference to variates. I am specifically using it across many brands, not referring to any specific brand. The fact that there may be brands where brand value or appreciation is not statistically independent of product quality right now, does not mean it will never be. Such occasional statistical dependence is not causation: it s the result of extraneous variables (variates neither brand value nor quality) correlating with both quality and brand value. The main such extraneous variable is business owner long term plans for the brand. Those plans are not available to us, therefore we cannot predict the quality of a specific brand at any given future time. -
As to the other thread and me "bashing" anyone, I do believe I have demonstrated here and elsewhere that I do not hate people, I hate specific behaviours.
That contradicts with an other statement of yours, where you specifically state that "you hate people but like individuals"
But this thread shows that it is possible to have a discussion without "overheating" and I think that it has to do with how people perceive what is written. Some just don't see the difference between an attack on a person or on their behavior. And then without taking time to think about it hit the reply button and start spewing their emotions. Understandable, but it leads to "overheating" when others do the same.The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred. To them, any and all defense of the person is idolatry, no matter how factually correct the defense may be. The mere act of defending constitutes idolatry to them; the inaccuracy of their own accusations is irrelevant to them.
I guess it depends on the situation and how things are expressed, but go and find yourself the recent events I'm referring to where I perceive it as hypocrisy. The keen observers know what I'm hinting at.
-
Branding and quality are not orthogonal. A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality. Which is reputed because there are some brands based on quality.
No, man, just no.
The old HP. Craftsman. Snap On. Rolls-Royce. L. L. Bean.
These associations may not last (HP), but at least for some period of time the product, the brand and the marketing are all tied together. And most important, that connection is intentional.
You’re conflating quality, marketing, and reputation. Actual quality is completely orthogonal to marketing. Perceived quality (which isn’t actual quality) and reputation are definitely influenced by marketing, but none of those actually affect quality.
Note that there’s a unidirectional direct relationship between actual quality and perceived quality/reputarion
Actual quality can definitely directly affect perceived quality. But perceived quality doesn’t directly affect actual quality. (That’s defined by the materials and manufacturing processes only.) -
If you want me to look at something, send me a link. I’m not wasting my time on guessing games.The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred. To them, any and all defense of the person is idolatry, no matter how factually correct the defense may be. The mere act of defending constitutes idolatry to them; the inaccuracy of their own accusations is irrelevant to them.
I guess it depends on the situation and how things are expressed, but go and find yourself the recent events I'm referring to where I perceive it as hypocrisy. The keen observers know what I'm hinting at. -
Branding and quality are not orthogonal. A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality. Which is reputed because there are some brands based on quality.
The old HP. Craftsman. Snap On. Rolls-Royce. L. L. Bean.
These associations may not last (HP), but at least for some period of time the product, the brand and the marketing are all tied together. And most important, that connection is intentional.
The two are at least not connected together as they used to be. Quality and long levity have diminished over the last decades. Probably also has to do with the rise of so many brands and of course reduction in price.
But for some brands I feel I pay to much for the quality I get, just because of the brand. Look at power tools. I have a Bosh cordless screwdriver with "special" electronics in there, and it sucks. Was not cheap, but of course when it ran out of warranty it started to show weird behavior. Not working when I pull the trigger. Bang it against something and it works again, but not all the time Took it apart, re soldered joints, checked the circuit board, etc. No dice. When the battery is less full it seems to work better, but still not all the time. So not to happy with it, and when I am in need of another I don't think it will be a Bosh again. The one I had before, also a Bosh worked fine for many years until the brushes gave in. Had minimum amount of electronics in it.
So a popular brand is not a guarantee for quality. -
There is no contradiction. If you do see one, it is only due to my insufficient control of the English language.As to the other thread and me "bashing" anyone, I do believe I have demonstrated here and elsewhere that I do not hate people, I hate specific behaviours.
That contradicts with an other statement of yours, where you specifically state that "you hate people but like individuals"
The former means I do not hate any single person, but do hate specific behaviours. The latter means I dislike groups of people, even though I like individual persons. The "hate" in the latter is hyperbole, too; intended to highlight the difference between my attitude between individuals and groups of people.
My dislike for groups isn't in-built, either; it has slowly grown due to the typical group behaviour dynamics, which I dislike. Essentially, I do not dislike groups of people, but the typical behaviours I see when people form larger groups. (My own limits are such that while I can separate person and behaviour, I really cannot separate groups of persons from the observed collective behaviour of the group.)But this thread shows that it is possible to have a discussion without "overheating"
It is important to remember that any reaction to what someone writes on the net, is not based on the person of the writer, but only on their output. We do not perceive the person themselves, except through what they write; and the perception is largely defined by our own experiences, and is fully subjective, not objective.
As to hypocrisy – in the "the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticises another" sense –, we are all occasionally guilty of it; it too is natural. What really matters, is whether one examines ones own behaviour the same way they examine others' behaviour, rationally.
It is my hope that the same criteria and examination is extended to all, regardless of fame/brand/attractiveness/accomplishments/title, including to "big guns". And in the same vein, that you can still appreciate a person, and/or their work, while doing that examination. And, that even when someone isn't a "big gun", what they have to say or show can be just as important and useful as anything a "big gun" might produce.