Hey Chris, thanks for responding to my response.

Further semantics:

Hey Chris, thanks for responding to my response.

Further semantics:

  1. I understand where you’re coming from regarding ‘haters’. My disagreement with you there wasn’t a personal one — rather I think that internet culture as a whole has allowed criticism of any sort to be labelled as people ‘hating’. I think a far better approach is to simply ask commenters why they think it sucks. It’d be impossible for someone to bash on you unless they did think something could improve, after all. Most (not all) of the time, trolls attack people for their attitude more than their content, and will let their guard down if you show humility instead of smugness. (Not to say I think you’re smug, just an example) — And subsequently, give you actual helpful feedback.

  2. I do agree with you that posting anything publicly is vulnerable, but I also think there is varying degrees of vulnerability. Particularly, in this case, I was speaking more about the vulnerability of obscurity. In other words, it’s safer to write a listicle stat-wise because it’ll more easily gain viewership.

  3. You’re a cool guy. Re-reading my original response, I feel like I was unnecessarily harsh. I’d just like to say that I’m not the kind of guy who bashes people for fun, rather that this article — not you — particularly struck a nerve with me. It got my attention, though. So mission accomplished?