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

Toxic Positivity

readable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 178 posts

Re: Toxic Positivity

#141

Post by prepend »

lauraekelly_ wrote: post #126
samhw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's probably not a good idea to read comments about your writing on the internet. They aren't sending them 'to you' - you've sought out this discussion - so it's on you if you choose to read people's opinions. If you want constructive advice: try to write in the same way that you would talk. Shallowly, that means read your writing out loud – what Flaubert called his 'gueulade' – or, even better, vice versa:…

Hey, thanks for your comment. I took a walk in the sunshine to decompress a bit and before I go I just wanted to pop back on to explain a couple of things. I didn't seek this out. I don't really go looking for such discussions because I'm a bit too time-starved, but someone let me know they shared my article on here because they liked it so I checked it out. Because I don't go looking for this, this hasn't really hap…

I think one of the contributors to toxic positivity is to try to head off subthreads like this.

I spend more time than I’d like adding in positive language around everything because people overreact to anything not super positive. So to avoid people misinterpreting my comments, Ill usually add in lots of “a+,” blue ribbon, superpowers, etc blargh.

I appreciate you writing your article and participating in this thread but think we’re part of the problem.

If people are better able to accept criticism, then we’ll get more reality. Until then, I’m more likely to comment positively or not comment at all on the very likely chance that the author jumps into a thread and spazzes out on me.

I think you were trying to empathize, but I don’t think a master’s in English is necessarily useful for the topics brought up in this thread. Without more context (school, projects, interests, performance) I don’t think there’s any correlation between masters in English and ability to read and write well.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#142

Post by goodpoint »

zeroth32 wrote: post #21

> Airing concerns or struggles in the workplace can be really nerve-wracking. Often, we are afraid of appearing unprofessional. We fear being judged negatively. This is the perfect opportunity to practice active listening. This ^ is toxic positivity. I am not unpaid therapist for my work colleagues. I have my own problems.

> I am not unpaid therapist for my work colleagues

People are very much paid to interact with colleagues in constructive manners, including understanding and addressing concerns.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#143

Post by Wyoming23 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #130
samhw wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're illustrating that person's point. I'm a liberal, with-the-times person in a liberal, with-the-times city, and I cringe at the thought of ever uttering the words "invalidate someone's lived experience". Aside from anything else, what the fuck does it even mean? I don't think it's a bad rule of writing to speak in simple, clear, plain words, not glutinous agglomerations of abstract verbiage which evoke n…

> Aside from anything else, what the fuck does it even mean? I'm assuming this is a genuine question, so I'll answer with my genuine understanding. Invalidating someone's lived experience is the process by which someone more or less says, "that didn't happen to you", or "your interpretation of events that happened to you is wrong." Before we start to find edge cases like "they clearly left the door unlocked and belie…

Or to be more clear, it's a phrase which means that if a person feels victimized, their anecdotal personal account supersedes any empirical evidence.

It's essentially a new form of religious anti-intellectualism, but without identifying itself as such.

In the past, you might not have been allowed to say "no, God didn't appear to you in a vision" or "no, this event wasn't evidence of divine intervention". Today you're allowed to question someone's anecdote about religious experience, but you're not allowed to question their experience of victimization under a certain set of classes.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#144

Post by t-3 »

kbelder wrote: post #131
t-3 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the reason they give when they are put a microphone in their face, in reality humans are pleasure utility maximizers, if you cannot extract any advantage out of kids then it's only natural that people won't have them. Exactly. I know that having kids ruined my mother's life and trapped my parents in an unfulfilling relationship. Why would I want to waste my life raising kids, when it leads to misery (scienti…

>when it leads to misery (scientifically proven!) 1. I have kids (n=4) 2. I'm not miserable. In fact, the opposite. Myth Busted!

Great example of toxic positivity!

Re: Toxic Positivity

#145

Post by MockObject »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #140
slowmovintarget wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That phrase is often used to move goalposts when someone is using an anecdote to justify actions they've taken, or policy they're advocating. This can include leveling accusations at other people. It is a linguistic tactic that attempts to bypass debate through appeal to emotion. "You can't tell me I don't feel this way!" Correct, you feel that way, but your feelings don't magically turn assertions into fact. The obj…

Really good example. Thank you. This is precisely the type of thinking that goes into invalidating lived experience. The mechanism behind invalidating lived experience is fundamentally a reality construction mechanism. It's goal is to construct a reality, namely by the person doing the invalidating. The reality being constructed is absent bigotry and abuse as a way of avoiding the task of confronting them directly. I…

Invalidation of Lived Experience is also what we do, and should do, to Targeted Individuals [0], people who boast of having diseases cured by crank medicine, and con game victims certain that they're beloved by overseas supermodels. Skepticism is a rational and healthy habit.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/mind-games-the-tortured-lives-of...

Re: Toxic Positivity

#146

Post by d23 »

xnorswap wrote: post #15
Mordisquitos wrote: post #5

I very much agree that so-called "toxic positivity" can be a problem, but I found this article greatly lacking in any sort of substance. There are no specific examples of toxic positivity, no explanation as to why its bad other than vacuous general terms repeated ad nauseam (did she mention toxic positivity invalidates lived experiences?), and no in depth explanation as to the alternatives other than what is essentia…

This was my reaction too, I didn't want to comment as such earlier when it would be the only comment, but it feels like this has been propelled to the top of the front-page by the title alone.

I would hope HN would be more immune to this general online phenomenon, but these sorts of articles get ranked highly often enough that it seems like a majority of users rush to vote and opine without taking the time to read.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#147

Post by wreath »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #129
chrsig wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decent managers can help to defuse that. Can you share any insights into how it gets defused? I'm a recovering cynic, and so is my manager. Sometimes we get into a feedback loop, which isn't great.

In my case, I had a team of mature, experienced developers. They all had decades of experience, and at least a couple of them, were smarter than me. I stressed that we respect each other, and I also managed each as an individual. When there was conflict, I generally looked for common goals, and stressed them. I treated them as family. I made sure they all understood that the company's goals were always foremost to me…

Holy cow, a team running for 25 years? Thats almost an entire career.

I appreciate you being straightforward with priorities/goals (company’s THEN the individuals’). I think an awful lot of managers fail because they try to act like friends with their team and then get hit by the reality of whats expected of them and it gets real awkward at best.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#148

Post by kelseyfrog »

MockObject wrote: post #145
kelseyfrog wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really good example. Thank you. This is precisely the type of thinking that goes into invalidating lived experience. The mechanism behind invalidating lived experience is fundamentally a reality construction mechanism. It's goal is to construct a reality, namely by the person doing the invalidating. The reality being constructed is absent bigotry and abuse as a way of avoiding the task of confronting them directly. I…

Invalidation of Lived Experience is also what we do, and should do, to Targeted Individuals [0], people who boast of having diseases cured by crank medicine, and con game victims certain that they're beloved by overseas supermodels. Skepticism is a rational and healthy habit. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/mind-games-the-tortured-lives-of...

Great. In agreement, but help me understand how we went from lived experiences involving bigotry and abuse to crank medicine and con game victims? I added that boundary specifically so that cases like this wouldn't be brought up and used to counter-example.

> Skepticism is a rational and healthy habit.

Agreed. Veiled-skepticism is, however in the case of invalidating lived experience, a powerful gaslighting tool. Discerning between the two is an additional hurdle targets of bigotry and abuse see layered on top of them.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#149

Post by kelseyfrog »

Wyoming23 wrote: post #143
kelseyfrog wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aside from anything else, what the fuck does it even mean? I'm assuming this is a genuine question, so I'll answer with my genuine understanding. Invalidating someone's lived experience is the process by which someone more or less says, "that didn't happen to you", or "your interpretation of events that happened to you is wrong." Before we start to find edge cases like "they clearly left the door unlocked and belie…

Or to be more clear, it's a phrase which means that if a person feels victimized, their anecdotal personal account supersedes any empirical evidence. It's essentially a new form of religious anti-intellectualism, but without identifying itself as such. In the past, you might not have been allowed to say "no, God didn't appear to you in a vision" or "no, this event wasn't evidence of divine intervention". Today you're…

It's very simple. I'm not sure why we're talking about visions. If someone says, "Such and such happened to me. I think it was abuse," consider stopping to think two times before responding with "No, that didn't happen." It's the very same thing already in the HN guidelines in the form of "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." I'm not sure why we're constructing parallels between religious interventions other than to ridicule having curious conversations instead of deciding for other people.

Re: Toxic Positivity

#150

Post by WaitWaitWha »

Why do we have to 're-invent' new words and present as something new for things that have been around for millennia?

I am all for exploration, but re-naming breaks the link to valuable historical material.

Post reply on HN