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

81–90 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#81

Post by politician »

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.

It's an unfortunate consequence of the point-based reward systems that platforms use to incentivize participation. There are certain topics that large groups of people will always upvote or always downvote. It's a rational behavior to repeat the same comments whenever such a topic comes up if those comments can reliably mine rewards by doing so, even if the rewards in this case are adjustments to one's own dopamine balance.

In offline social settings, the ability to monetize comments is somewhat more difficult but not totally absent (popularity, elections, etc).

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#82

Post by wpietri »

deadbeeves wrote: post #80
wpietri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insta-block [...] seems at the heart of the brokenness of online discourse. > having seen what some of the women in my life go through re: abusive behavior online, I also understand the hair trigger Even from your own words, it sounds like the heart is not in the reaction, but what people are reacting to. I am moderately mouthy on social media. I get a much, much smaller level of pushback than similar women do. Whe…

Sorry, but how is anything of what you've said an example of "putting women 'in their place'"? Do men not have their credentials questioned or their opinion dismissed online, or is it misogyny purely because it's men doing it to women?

As I already said, it happens to women disproportionately. If you'd like to learn more about when exactly it's misogyny, again, read Manne's book, the heart of which is precisely defining the term.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#83

Post by lapcat »

globalreset wrote: post #57
lapcat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For obscure people, especially anonymous randos, there are practically no consequences. When I hear people complain about "repercussions" from online speech, they usually just mean criticism. And that's all the article author seems to mean too. "I realize this section makes me sound like a Perfectly Logical Person who does not get upset by negative public criticism, I promise this is not at all the case and I have 100000 feelings about everything that happens on the internet and get upset all the time."

Of course famous people can get into some trouble for what they said in the past, but they usually bounce back and then find a new crowd of followers with a different ideological cast than their previous crowd of followers.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#84

Post by wpietri »

deadbeeves wrote: post #74
wpietri wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, a…

As a frequent writer, I think most of the burden lies upon the writer because they are the one choosing to put things in front of an audience. Yes, I think readers also have an obligation to not be, say, willfully obtuse. But if they're approaching something I say in good faith and have a bad reaction that I didn't intend, I think that's mostly my problem. My good intent may explain how I got there, but I'm still going to try to change how I write so that I have the effect I am seeking.

So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women", I do have to wonder at their motivation. Do they also pen strident defenses of writers any time something is misunderstood? Or is there a more particular pattern to their vigorous reactions?

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#85

Post by lucideer »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #69
lucideer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Said the posts were deleted. >A few dudes in the replies (who I think by now have all deleted their posts) asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive…

ah, well spotted. I'll edit.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#86

Post by [deleted] »

karaterobot wrote: post #47

My rules for HN: * Assume the person responding to you hasn't read the article, and has only briefly scanned your comment while mentally composing their reply. * Anything abstract is going to get misunderstood; keep it concrete but vague. * There is no consistent relationship between quality of a comment and how people respond to it. * You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing…

[deleted]

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#87

Post by deadbeeves »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #79
deadbeeves wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, a…

Here's an example of why intent doesn't always matter: In the Star Wars universe, the kind of music that Max Rebo plays is a lot like our Earth jazz. But they don't refer to it as jazz. They call it jizz. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jizz

I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from this. Yes, "jizz" is indeed a vulgar slang in English. By a different etymology it is also the fictional name of a fictional musical genre that's similar to real jazz. By yet another etymology it is also the behavioral characteristics of a bird that enable a birdwatcher to identify it. It would be entirely correct to say "look at that jizz, that's definitely a golden-crested pygmy goose". Someone else listening in might be confused, but that's their problem.

Words have multiple meanings. To ignore this and require that everyone just uses those meanings that you personally are aware of is an unreasonable request.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#88

Post by gary_0 »

wpietri wrote: post #41
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…

If you're interested in the ways in which especially women receive strident pushback in a way that trains them to self-censor, I'd suggest reading Manne's "Down Girl: the logic of misogyny". She's an analytic philosophy professor, so it's a bit academic in spots. But I think it does a good job cataloging the many ways in which women are put "in their place", a place that very much includes a lot of self-censorship.

What you're talking about is a real thing (I've seen its effect on women in my life) but I'd prefer to take Julia's post at face value, which shows her as someone with a quiet enthusiasm for tech who doesn't enjoy pointless Internet arguments. Honestly, we could probably do with more people like that.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#89

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #34
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…

[deleted]

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#90

Post by bachmeier »

karaterobot wrote: post #47

My rules for HN: * Assume the person responding to you hasn't read the article, and has only briefly scanned your comment while mentally composing their reply. * Anything abstract is going to get misunderstood; keep it concrete but vague. * There is no consistent relationship between quality of a comment and how people respond to it. * You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing…

> You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases.

Sometimes I do this, but more commonly I will write my comment and then just not check that discussion ever again. I only check the discussion if it's a situation where I am willing to engage if there is a response. My experience has been that replies to any comment that's even mildly controversial are such that the other party will not bother trying to understand what I'm saying. In many cases I might be posting a piece of data (with a link to the source) and inevitably someone's going be upset because they don't like the data.

Post reply on HN