Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

cherylyeoh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–416 of 416 posts

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#411

Post by Chris2048 »

TuringTest wrote: post #401
Chris2048 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all that is needed when the burden of proof is not upon you. I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space, anyone with such a claim themselves bear that burden. MY 'idea' is the rejection if an unsupported claim, requiring no more rationalisation than that.

> I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space In that case you didn't needed to write down your rejection of it either, and your post became redundant. No wonder that it got downmodded into oblivion.

Pointing out something as unjustified is not redundant, especially ion a context where it appears to have been assumed.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#412

Post by TuringTest »

Chris2048 wrote: post #411
TuringTest wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space In that case you didn't needed to write down your rejection of it either, and your post became redundant. No wonder that it got downmodded into oblivion.

Pointing out something as unjustified is not redundant, especially ion a context where it appears to have been assumed.

You left out commenting on the part where your post came as dismissive. If your post had made a neutral assertion that "role models have been assumed but that may be unjustified", it might have been acceptable. But that is not what your post did.

Now you may learn to avoid writing remarks like that and contribute with constructive dialog in the future, or keep defending a post which the community decided to flag dead and bury, by making rationalizations about it that were not explicit in the original.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#413

Post by wiredfool »

morgante wrote: post #406
wiredfool wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find 'touchy' people to be really creepy. They ignore the body language of "go the [word] away before I find something to run through you". But you say that in a workplace and people look at you funny. It's not bonding. It's a power thing, I think. "I can touch you, but if you call it out, then you're the one who is reacting and being 'sensitive'". (reversed, obv). You may think it's an important part of platonic s…

You're uncomfortable with touch, in a way that most people aren't. That's totally fine. I'm guessing you send off signals that you're uncomfortable with it. Part of social skills is knowing how to read those signals and respecting them. There are definitely people who I take pains to not touch (due to the signals they send), even in a crowded bar. I'll tell you it's definitely not a power thing. Most of the time, it…

So to step back a bit, here's what this looks like:

"You're weird"

"I read signals well, therefore I wouldn't trigger this"

Maybe you do. That's great. Then again, maybe you don't and don't realize it.

The tech industry has a well known bias toward somewhat not socially adjusted people, or at least, not neurotypical, and the massive influx of money hasn't put the breaks on manipulators who are just there for the money and power.

So you get people who don't read signals well, and you get people who read signals and blow right through them on purpose. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#414

Post by Chris2048 »

TuringTest wrote: post #412
Chris2048 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out something as unjustified is not redundant, especially ion a context where it appears to have been assumed.

You left out commenting on the part where your post came as dismissive. If your post had made a neutral assertion that "role models have been assumed but that may be unjustified", it might have been acceptable. But that is not what your post did. Now you may learn to avoid writing remarks like that and contribute with constructive dialog in the future, or keep defending a post which the community decided to flag dead…

> But that is not what your post did.

What did it do instead? That's exactly what it said. It's your assertion that the comment was "dismissive".

> Now you may learn

the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"; The remark "like that" was fine in my own judgement, and that's what matters to me, not the handful of internet points I might lose to people who care for no dialogue at all.

The comment was constructive as far as I'm concerned, and my "rationalizations" are clear - I think you've jumped the gun in assuming your opinions here.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#415

Post by TuringTest »

Chris2048 wrote: post #414
TuringTest wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left out commenting on the part where your post came as dismissive. If your post had made a neutral assertion that "role models have been assumed but that may be unjustified", it might have been acceptable. But that is not what your post did. Now you may learn to avoid writing remarks like that and contribute with constructive dialog in the future, or keep defending a post which the community decided to flag dead…

> But that is not what your post did. What did it do instead? That's exactly what it said. It's your assertion that the comment was "dismissive". > Now you may learn the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"; The remark "like that" was fine in my own judgement, and that's what matters to me, not the handful of internet points I might lose to people who care for no dialogue at all. The comment was const…

> the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"

The post is hidden from view once it becomes flagged dead; and before it happened, no one bothered to mod it up to undo what they'd think could be an unfair down vote.

You may rationalize all you want, but fact remains that pjc50's post was not flagged down, and yours was, even though they were "suggesting exactly" the same point.

I just pointed out this factual difference, and proposed what I think is the most likely reason. If you keep thinking that you got downmodded not for the style of your post but for its contents, by "people who care for no dialogue", then how do you explain that pjc50's post was not downmodded as well?

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#416

Post by Chris2048 »

TuringTest wrote: post #415
Chris2048 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that is not what your post did. What did it do instead? That's exactly what it said. It's your assertion that the comment was "dismissive". > Now you may learn the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"; The remark "like that" was fine in my own judgement, and that's what matters to me, not the handful of internet points I might lose to people who care for no dialogue at all. The comment was const…

> the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community" The post is hidden from view once it becomes flagged dead; and before it happened, no one bothered to mod it up to undo what they'd think could be an unfair down vote. You may rationalize all you want, but fact remains that pjc50's post was not flagged down, and yours was, even though they were "suggesting exactly" the same point. I just pointed out this fact…

"No one bothered to mod it up"

But doo you know how many saw it at that point? Many nested comments see no active users in any case, other than those already participating in the thread. This means voting is biased by that.

The fact that pjc50's post was not down-modded is also consistent with the down votes being non-representative. You're applying "logic" where it doesn't apply, but feel free to apply probability or statistics.

Post reply on HN