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

You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#141

Post by sneak »

goodpoint wrote: post #124
fullmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

> exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. Speak for yourself please. On most forums nobody is going to praise another for their knowledge. Additionally most people are anonymous.

Most, sure. But I have learned more from astoundingly good HN comments over the last dozen years than any other site on the internet.

I love that our local celebrities, as such, are such not for battle but for their euclididation.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#142

Post by gonzo41 »

bluedino wrote: post #13

Reddit is great because someone can says 1 + 1 = 3, get fifty upvotes, you can point out that it's actually 2, get downvoted into oblivion, and then some other idiot will come along and say it's 4

Upvotes and downvotes don't matter. The real score and fun is how many people you can draw into trying to get to you to admit that 1+1 is 2.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#143

Post by ianai »

guerrilla wrote: post #121
ianai wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.

> “Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your poi…

It’s foolish if taken too far, I think, but useful often.

The trouble is even if outright false claims are responded to with a Wikipedia or news article (and possibly nothing further), with a large enough audience, the proponents of the falsehood will eventually try to subvert that Wikipedia or news article.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#144

Post by Havoc »

>"in-crowd" that totally hates everything corporations have "ruined". These views are not representative of the larger world.

Is it though? Agree with overall sentiment expressed on not needing to engage but this part seems off.The mega corps ruined everything sentiment strikes me as quite pervasive throughout society.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#145

Post by miguelgrinberg »

cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

What few people understand is that by responding you are also elevating the engagement score of the ridiculous take and ensuring it gets in front of many more eyes.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#147

Post by zahrc »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

That’s a very… nihilistic view. I don’t get anything from this comment, apart from killing 2 minutes while on the loo.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#148

Post by sockmeistr »

ShamelessC wrote: post #113
avgcorrection wrote: post #78

I hope I never feel intrinsic motivation to defend my employer.

Yeah that part of this felt highly avoidant. It's one thing to engage in nonsense with random strangers - that is likely useless (irony ensues). But to feel attacked by coworkers who are upset about their jobs is probably just toxic. I assume the author's situation has more nuance than that, but they didn't provide that in their writing.

The context is that they work for Tailscale. (I'm guessing you assumed they were FAANG?)

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#149

Post by raattgift »

lisper wrote: post #94
fullmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

Or, somewhat less pejoratively, you want to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to public scrutiny.

If the intent to advance a hypothesis for public scrutiny was declared explicitly, indicating the basis for forming the hypothesis (or where it was found, if not originated by the hypothesis-advancer), then I think there would be interactions with experts rather than an avalanche of non-experts repeating slogans (with no indication of how or where they found the adage).

That sort of transparency may make the difference among a set of choices including "that's so ridiculous it's not worth replying", "that's ridiculous but maybe both parties (and other readers) might learn something from the discussion of why it's ridiculous", and "we can take this seemingly-ridiculous hypothesis somewhat seriously and determine where and how it goes wrong, and whether a more formal exploration (in the sense of 'write it up as something approaching a draft paper') might be fruitful".

Experts can learn in a good faith ELI5/ELI12/ELI25 discussion, sometimes about their own field (e.g. the expert might arrive at some personally-useful intuition while explaining some technical procedure), but more often about how to communicate more effectively with nonexperts.

More pejoratively, advancing an unusual hypothesis in a field that one does not understand, leaning on a third-party idea that one does not disclose, and treating the unusual hypothesis as requiring disproof is unlikely to be fairly described as "good faith".

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#150

Post by bityard »

guerrilla wrote: post #93
fullmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

Improving the world is getting something out of it. That's in one's own interest by itself.

I would like to hear more about your thesis that arguing with people you don't know on the internet improves the world. :)
Post reply on HN