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

51–60 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#51

Post by lambda »

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…

Grope has the same meaning in American English, and used in that context could be fine ("grope around").

But I have never heard "groper" used for anything other than some engaging in sexual assault. The benign sense of "grope around" isn't a sufficient part of an identity to ever use the word "groper", while he sexual assault sense is, so "groper" implies the sexual assault meaning.

It's entirely likely that the original author of this phrasing was thinking about it in the benign sense, but didn't realize that the phrasing would make many readers interpret it in the sexual assault sense.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#52

Post by jlawson »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #39
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…

Indulging someone's hypersensitivities is not helping them, it's harming them.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#53

Post by lapcat »

mjb wrote: post #3

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing f…

> Somehow we've built a culture where its socially acceptable, and even rewarded, to behave online in ways that would never be acceptable in other social settings.

I don't think we've "built" the culture per se. I think it's more like humans evolved over millions of years for small, in-person groups, and we're not "built" (by nature) to handle the endless sea of online strangers. On the internet, the personal familiarity is gone, the proximity is gone, the facial expressions and tone are gone, and indeed the fear of repercussions is mostly gone.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#54

Post by haswell »

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…

> So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post:

When I read the Mastodon thread, this jumped out at me as well. A couple of the guys who raised the point clarified that they fully agreed that the removal of “groping” was a good thing, but by that point, the author wouldn’t be able to see the clarification.

I’m really torn on this. I fully support people’s choices to set boundaries and block abusive behavior. At the same time, “I disagree with you so I’m going to insta-block you and not even give you a chance to clarify” seems at the heart of the brokenness of online discourse.

But having seen what some of the women in my life go through re: abusive behavior online, I also understand the hair trigger.

I don’t know what the right balance is, and it’s likely very personal and contextual, but I’ve personally started to only engage with conversations if I’m willing to deal with all of the likely categories of response (barring obvious abuse). Disagree=block seems to increase polarization and seems counterproductive in the long run. It also seems like a good way to reinforce my own blind spots, even if it turns out that I’m “right” some of the time.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#55

Post by NelsonMinar »

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…

There's a lot more interesting things in Julia's post than relitigating this specific example.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#56

Post by mecsred »

mjb wrote: post #3

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing f…

I agree with the sentiment that greater freedom of expression is a noble goal and society loses something with these soft restrictions. Having a catalog of unmentionables is not a new thing though, and definitely is not "unacceptable in other social settings". It's a basic social skill from long before the internet existed. It's been rude to bring up politics and devicive issues in conversation for literal centuries.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#57

Post by globalreset »

lapcat wrote: post #53
mjb wrote: post #3

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing f…

> Somehow we've built a culture where its socially acceptable, and even rewarded, to behave online in ways that would never be acceptable in other social settings. I don't think we've "built" the culture per se. I think it's more like humans evolved over millions of years for small, in-person groups, and we're not "built" (by nature) to handle the endless sea of online strangers. On the internet, the personal familia…

> fear of repercussions is mostly gone.

Is it? Because AFAICT people censorship themselves online all the time for the fear of repercussion. It's like being on tape 27/7 where anyone that doesn't like you can watch your old tapes and loook for problems.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#58

Post by 0xfae »

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…

There is a difference between:

- What I meant to say.

- The actual words I used. (And the cultural context around those words, that I may or may not be aware of).

- The impact of the words I use.

Like others have said, if you care about the people who are hearing your words, and they say "hey, the words you used had a negative impact" than it makes a lot of sense and is really not hard to say "oh, I'm sorry, I'll change my words because I don't want to make you feel that way" and then move on.

Or you can spend all day debating the intention of your words and how you didn't mean it that way and completely ignore the actual impact, and leave people feeling like you don't care about their feelings.

In particular, in your personal relationships I highly encourage you focus on your impact rather than what you meant to say, especially when apologizing.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#59

Post by lanstin »

>I mostly try to head this off by trying to be self-aware about my knowledge level on a topic, and saying “I’m not sure…” when I’m not sure about something.

This excellent tactic for avoiding pointless debate and inviting helpful replies is sadly beyond many people in the software field. Software folks are used to the past where you could master things completely. With the continued growth of knowledge and the growth of the worlds complexity, it is quite impossible even for one super intelligent person that was present at the dawn of creation to keep up; failing to consider disagreement as a potentially useful pointer to the situation where you don't have as much knowledge as you think is a risk. (edited to add "is a risk" so that was a sentence.)

I have seen multiple projects led by extremely smart people fail because they didn't listen to key information from less smart people that were nonetheless better informed about the particular technologies involved.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#60

Post by nicbou »

This is solid advice.

Having dealt with what the author experienced, I'd like to add some advice:

- All online conversations are optional. You don't have to finish an exchange you don't enjoy. Leave idiots on read.

- You can't win everyone over. Some people are deliberately contrarian. Many argue in bad faith. Don't try to turn a provocation into a discussion.

- You don't owe your audience anything. They don't pay you.

Post reply on HN