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

Adversarial Collaboration

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#201

Post by vanderZwan »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #190
ivalm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“why it is important to you that X is true?” implies subjectivism in the belief system. While I think belief systems are largely subjective some people think of them as objective and take offense on suggestions that their beliefs are “just” subjective.

I have a close group of friends that consists of an athiest, an agnostic, a hindu, and 2 christians, and outside of 1 of those christians, we've all been friends for at least 13 years (1 of those relationships since 1994). No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit. The athiest didn't think about it, those two had…

Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#202

Post by helmholtz »

nyokodo wrote: post #191
vanderZwan wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... an interesting interpretation of what I said, because my motivation is the opposite. I had not considered it could come across as dismissive, thank you for pointing that out. However, when I ask this it is not to dismiss someone, it's because if I understand why something is important to them I am better at arguing in good faith without accidentally being dismissive of what matters to them. Which helps with…

> That's... an interesting interpretation of what I said In a non-verbal exchange this choice of an explicit pause followed by the use of the phrase "interesting interpretation" could also be misconstrued as an underhanded compliment/sarcasm further undermining your alleged intention.

And? GPs response was way more combative than the explicit pause. The guy took pains to highlight "assuming a good faith discussion". Clearly, it's a question that IS on the table. It's driven by wanting to understand further the other side's thought process. I'd love to have a question like that. It would make me pause and ponder and reflect. Always a good thing. Not "immediately end the discussion". Crikey.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#203

Post by suoduandao2 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #124
dale_glass wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they care about social justice, which is bad, and they are only pretending to care about social justice, which is bad That's P ^ !P, which is a contradiction. Your reading doesn't make any sense.

I'm pointing out the contradiction in this ongoing "political correctness/woke" backlash. They're complaining about people doing the right thing. And they know that. So they have to complain they're doing the right thing wrong, or doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or the right thing is only a cover for a nefarious plot. Which only re-inforces that it's the right thing, even before you examine the decades l…

It's not hard to make the argument that it's a cover for a nefarious plot. Given the timing of when these ideas rose to prominence, that it was a reaction to the 'occupy wall street' movement and the prospect of an underclass uniting against the ruling class is a parsimonious explanation. The US ruling class very effectively prevented poor white and poor black citizens from making common cause in the early twentieth century by telling one of them they were better than the other. It's no great leap of the imagination to suppose they'd try the same in the twenty-first.

I don't personally subscribe to that narrative - dividing the losers of the new economic reality might have been an incidental goal, but the idea that social justice is a solution to elite overproduction[1] makes more sense to me. And as a means of curbing elite overproduction I actually like it - just as Edwardian scandal culture selected for self-control, cancel culture selects for a lot of the qualities we'd want in a successful elite. But I've yet to hear a good argument why it's not a cynical play by the elite to divide the poorest citizens against each other. Most who subscribe to the tenets of the system refuse to acknowledge the argument at all.

It's very hard to argue that social justice isn't designed to divide the poorest people against each other, since intended or not that's an effect it has[2]. I imagine the best counterargument to the belief I put forth in my first paragraph would be an alternate explanation for why these ideas arose when they did - does anyone who doesn't believe it's a cover for a nefarious plot have one?

[1] as argued very eloquently by, I believe, Charles Eisenstein in an essay I wish I could locate.

[2] and it puts one in the position of arguing that Yale isn't a racist institution, which is a losing position from the outset.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#204

Post by kmill »

nyokodo wrote: post #194
kmill wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in their own ways. It's interesting to know what sorts of consequences to such interpretations a person finds to be important for their worldview. Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in…

> Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem. > Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to. Assuming good faith is necessary and good for any kind of productive debate but it's not necessarily or need be a…

Is the content of your comment that you are explaining ad hominem to me and that vanderZwan's question requires mutual trust? Yes, I fully understand this.

The only thing I am trusting here is that vanderZwan is trying to accurately report their experiences. I trust, since they say it is done in good-faith discussions, that they are sensitive to the risk of this being perceived as being ad hominem and that in-person they ask the question in an appropriate way.

To be clear, I never said that I would respond well to the question. My point is that it is a large leap to go from what vanderZwan said to that this is for the purpose of dismissing someone.

Also to be clear, I think it's valid for P5fRxh5kUvp2th to think that this sort of question is well outside of what is ever respectful to ask. I just happen to think it's wrong to assume that disrespect is vanderZwan's intent.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#205

Post by nyokodo »

vanderZwan wrote: post #200
nyokodo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's... an interesting interpretation of what I said In a non-verbal exchange this choice of an explicit pause followed by the use of the phrase "interesting interpretation" could also be misconstrued as an underhanded compliment/sarcasm further undermining your alleged intention.

Sure, but at some point interpretation tells you just as much about the interpreter as about the person saying something, and I'm not responsible for the former.

> but at some point interpretation tells you just as much about the interpreter as about the person saying something

Maybe, but it's totally unnecessary if you want to foster open and good faith discussions as you claim.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#206

Post by hnuser123456 »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #180
vanderZwan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a good-faith discussion, I tend to ask people "can you tell me why it is important to you that X is true?" (or false, or whatever) these days. Of course I should also be open about why a particular view is important to me in those situations. It seems to be the most effective way maintaining a productive conversation when disagreeing on things, regardless of whether we'll agree in the end.

I would immediately end a discussion if I were asked that question. If you want to dismiss me by trying to imply my opinion is driven by a want of something other than accuracy with reality, I can find other people to spend my time with.

If something is important to you for a reason the asker may not have known, it might make it more important to them too and change their mind a little.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#207

Post by hitekker »

nyokodo wrote: post #205
vanderZwan wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but at some point interpretation tells you just as much about the interpreter as about the person saying something, and I'm not responsible for the former.

> but at some point interpretation tells you just as much about the interpreter as about the person saying something Maybe, but it's totally unnecessary if you want to foster open and good faith discussions as you claim.

I think the GP is being patient. Instead of policing his tone, you should reconsider yours. It sounds like you’re upset for an unclear reason.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#208

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

vanderZwan wrote: post #201
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a close group of friends that consists of an athiest, an agnostic, a hindu, and 2 christians, and outside of 1 of those christians, we've all been friends for at least 13 years (1 of those relationships since 1994). No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit. The athiest didn't think about it, those two had…

Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.

You do not have a right to my time.

If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements.

No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#209

Post by [deleted] »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #208
vanderZwan wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.

You do not have a right to my time. If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements. No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.

[deleted]

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#210

Post by [deleted] »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #208
vanderZwan wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.

You do not have a right to my time. If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements. No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN