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

Some tactics for writing in public

jvns.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#31

Post by halfinvested »

ChrisSD wrote: post #21
ghaff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'd use censor in the context of Julia's post. It read more like the next thing you quoted. Something's well-trod and people have strong opinions but absolutely no one is going to change their mind or really make a novel point or learn anything new. I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going t…

Imagine, for example, there's a really interesting scientific paper someone would love to talk about but it's in the field of Climate Science. Everyone knows the comments a blog post on it is going to get. And they're (almost) all going to be the same no matter what the paper is actually about. Every time. Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?

People are going to feel all kinds of things. Asking whether or not they should feel them is a dead end in the context of public forums, because nobody controls anybody else's feelings, or how each individual reacts to a feeling.

Sincere, productive conversations are mostly going to take place in more private forums like group chat or face to face. Public discussion threads are better suited for identifying friends and enemies, playing and joking around, and signaling status.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#32

Post by lapcat »

zer8k wrote: post #22
wrp wrote: post #8

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as t…

Up/down vote systems, especially ones that punish the poster quickly by rendering their post unreadable, create a hivemind of people who agree. HN posters LOVE to point out the fact it's "not like Reddit" when, in fact, it is. If you say something factual but disagreeable with the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy) you will be met with downvotes. Even a small amount begins to add up until…

> the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy)

HN has no zeitgeist, and "mid-to-far-left social policy" is not even close to my experience.

A lot of commenters seem to think that HN has some kind of consensus, but it doesn't, as dang himself (the HN moderator) can testify. A number of different factions coexist (uneasily) here.

My experience is that upvotes and downvotes are... pretty random, sometimes inexplicable. It really depends on who happens to see your comment at the moment in time.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#33

Post by thebooktocome »

noelwelsh wrote: post #26
teddyh wrote: post #17

[flagged]

Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.

Absolutely. And the specific example here—reminiscent of the dongle incident [0]—is definitely one of those.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#34

Post by wpietri »

OJFord wrote: post #23

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anyth…

"Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper

I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make.

As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#35

Post by juped »

OJFord wrote: post #23

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anyth…

[flagged]

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#36

Post by viknesh »

wrp wrote: post #8

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as t…

I think the "shock" at an old man page is pretty silly to begin with, but I think a better phrasing for #9 would be to ignore the trolls.

The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad, but that viewed with today's (American) social context, the phrase would likely be taken to be distasteful. Therefore, I think the issue with the commenters isn't that they "challenge" the viewpoint. At a minimum these commenters have failed to grasp the concept and more likely they are simply not responding in good faith.

I do think there's a separate discussion to be had about the role of political correctness/word policing in modern discourse, but in the author's version of events, the blocked commenters aren't trying to make that argument.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#37

Post by lucideer »

OJFord wrote: post #23

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anyth…

I think the sexual interpretation is pretty strong (at least today) - "groping" and "groper" have slightly different vibes - that warrants removal today imo. But yeah, I'm not sure if that was the case in the 80s.

--- Edit: as pointed out below I hadn't noticed when I wrote this that the offending mastodon replies were apparently deleted so the 3 replies I mention here aren't actually relevant ---

I did click through to the Mastodon link from the OP and had a look at the "dudes in the replies demanding that i prove [...]" - the replies were largely supportive, apart from 2 "dudes" saying they hadn't considered the sexual-assault meaning before now & weren't sure if that was intended BUT still strongly agreeing that it should be removed, and 1 other dude (possibly non-native English speaker?) surprised that such a sexual-assault-related interpretation existed and asking for further context (not "demanding proof"). That's all followed by a lot of extremely confrontational replies from the OP assuming bad faith in every case.

Julia is a fantastic tech writer, & I'm sure I'll continue to read her blog regularly, but... this isn't a great look. Asking for the manpage to be changed is perfectly reasonable but the ad hominem really wasn't needed here.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#38

Post by [deleted] »

wrp wrote: post #27
n4r9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald…

I did editorialize on #9 because I wanted to draw attention to it and get some discussion. My feeling is that her take is not entirely healthy.

[deleted]

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#39

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

OJFord wrote: post #23

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anyth…

Language evolves. I definitely associate "grope" more with sexual assault than trying to find a glass of water in the dark. It's understandable that the document could evoke discomfort.

The "they're just words" argument/defense is certainly never an acceptable response. It's one thing to go on a witch hunt and extrude connotation where there is none, but that's not what this is. Instead, use this as an opportunity to understand others better and learn to be more empathetic.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#40

Post by stronglikedan »

OJFord wrote: post #23

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anyth…

I agree with you, and chalk it up to people projecting their own warped views onto otherwise innocuous things.
Post reply on HN