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

Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#111

Post by [deleted] »

cornyNetHandle wrote: post #99
kbutler wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity. A listener declaring Crocker's rules says they will not be offended, but at best, profanity communicates your emotional reaction to a situation. In seeking optimal communication of information, profanity is largely wasted bandwidth.

The emotional reaction isn't wasted bandwidth. Consider; "Get some water now, please.", when compared to; "Get some fucking water now!". One of these will usually elicit a much quicker reaction.

[deleted]

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#112

Post by DrScump »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #102
quadcore wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I've submitted a Ask HN: ban nytimes lately - and got banned. Ive also sent an email to moderator asking for a feature that allows the ban of domains per user. Note that I've actually enjoyed this post, but anyway, if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it. EDIT: what's my opinion precisely you may ask? I think those are not hacker news per the guidelines. They are often general - good - bu…

Probably a better practice than commenting here about is: 1. Flag articles you don't want here. 2. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about how you don't want them here. 3. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here. I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part beca…

  Flag articles you don't want here.
This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain why a reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.).

For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons, e.g. Prohibited by policey, Spam, Illegal Content, Wrong Category, Sex for Money, etc. Now it's a unary, generic flag only.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#113

Post by DoreenMichele »

DrScump wrote: post #112
DoreenMichele wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a better practice than commenting here about is: 1. Flag articles you don't want here. 2. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about how you don't want them here. 3. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here. I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part beca…

Flag articles you don't want here. This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain why a reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.). For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons, e.g. Prohibited by police…

HN has a counter measure: vouching. So if something gets flagged, people who think it doesn't deserve to be can counterweight it with a vouch.

I am old and cranky and at a point where I would rather see more of that than more off topic pissing and moaning about what one or two individuals would like to see or not see here. It's lots of sound and noise, but no real action. I am suggesting they take action because my experience suggests that's both more effective and more satisfying.

But, then, in some sense, I am being a hypocrite. I probably should have just flagged and downvoted their off topic, annoying comments rather than trying to make suggestions.

So, whatever.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#114

Post by Jotto999 »

carlivar wrote: post #45
Jotto999 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I block myself from all sites that Media Bias Fact Check has on any of their lists of biased sources. It has greatly improved my experience of the internet, similar to hiding YouTube comments. I'd rather waste a few seconds clicking an unreadable link, than waste a few minutes reading something I don't want to be influenced by.

I visited their site. I'm intrigued. I'm curious what sites you have left after doing this? Where do you find yourself getting world news, for example?

I no longer read the NYT, Washington Post, Fox, CNN, etc.

Reuters is my main source of financial and world news, and it's mostly for productive reasons. On Twitter I try to follow people who are knowledgeable in their domain, and I frequently get exposure to current events through them. Bonus points to follow two experts in the same domain who think differently, and see what they say about the same thing. For random political stuff, I like Snopes and factcheck.org.

Overall, I care much less about the news than I used to. There are many societal issues that interest me but I have learned that keeping up with minute to minute noise is a waste of time. I can read in-depth things that describe broad trends and useful facts, and prefer that to my old addiction to the news. It's not just to avoid getting influenced by biased stuff, but to avoid wasting time.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#115

Post by dragonsky67 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #82
andromeduck wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.

The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.

I'm not sure that debate can lead to the "truth".

If you define Truth as being "the thing that actually happened", rather than the more definite "Mathematical truth" I believe that the best you can get at is an understanding of somebodies opinion of what happened, along with the bias that leads to that opinion.

Reading your comment again, I see that you do emphasis "different points of view", so I'm guessing that are actually approaching the same understanding from different directions. I believe outside of mathematics, truth is in most cases just an option depending upon point of view.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#116

Post by DoreenMichele »

dragonsky67 wrote: post #115
DoreenMichele wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.

I'm not sure that debate can lead to the "truth". If you define Truth as being "the thing that actually happened", rather than the more definite "Mathematical truth" I believe that the best you can get at is an understanding of somebodies opinion of what happened, along with the bias that leads to that opinion. Reading your comment again, I see that you do emphasis "different points of view", so I'm guessing that are…

I am not talking about the truth regarding a specific incident. I am talking things like more accurate mental models.

My oldest son sees the world extremely differently from me. When we hash things out, there is a lot of added value in hearing the other person's take on a problem space. If we both agree on the same solution having come at it from opposite directions, we can be confident it is a solid solution and not merely an expression of personal bias.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#117

Post by dragonsky67 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #68
arglebarnacle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rati…

On that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as the entire rest of the world . Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside reputation.

I would respectively suggest that most countries in the rest of the world don't behave in such a was as to require this level of excessive spending on "defence". As you state, if you are conducting defensive operations, how can it be that failure of that defence will not impact your country.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#118

Post by dragonsky67 »

_dps wrote: post #20
platz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and social norms! No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-positivist that I am! Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.

This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not "I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted". Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offendin…

I've got to say, I love the idea. I am always getting into trouble for not "playing nice" when I'm discussing something with somebody I don't agree with. It is very difficult to talk with people when the immediate assumption is that you are rude and offensive when all you want is a chance to get your opinion heard.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#119

Post by dragonsky67 »

cornyNetHandle wrote: post #8

I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of acerbic comment we are currently able to process. "Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full resp…

I do wonder how people could operate in this manner when presented with opinions that challenge their world view. Challenge somebodies religion, sexuality (especially if they are homophobic) or belief in their country and your are almost certain to trip them from civil discussion into emotional outburst in very short order.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#120

Post by bayonetz »

_dps wrote: post #95
bayonetz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and…

If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your o…

In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mutual truth expedition.
Post reply on HN