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

91–100 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#91

Post by wpietri »

wpietri wrote: post #84
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…

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 goi…

And perhaps I should add that if I focused on my supposed good intent to the exclusion of changing, then I'd have to question what my intent was. Or, putting it differently, the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. If I instead make it about my hurt feelings, I'd think that a better indicator of my deeper intent.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#92

Post by hobomatic »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#93

Post by teddyh »

noelwelsh wrote: post #75
teddyh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you claim the right to push back but also the right to block any responders who push back on your push back? Why the asymmetry? Because you’re right and they’re wrong? Sounds like people want to both get praise (or upvotes, depending on forum) for spouting the prevailing views (or the insular views of their bubble, whichever), but not having to deal with any inconvenient disagreements. Whatever that is, it is not…

There actually are objective facts in this world. Not everything is just the "prevailing views". People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to. It's also not worth talking to people who don't engage in good faith. Finally, one's time is finite. Internet randoms don't have an inalienable right to take up anyone's time.

> People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to.

Then don’t. But that’s not a “conversation”. That’s just lecturing.

Also: Who is the arbiter of what is, and isn’t “objective” truth? Reasonable people sometimes differ.

Also also: The “truth” in this case was “the word ‘groper’ is always offensive, no matter where it is used”. Which I certainly could see reasonable people disagree with. But nope, that obviously merited a straight block.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#94

Post by spondylosaurus »

deadbeeves wrote: post #87
spondylosaurus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-cre…

Sure, and nothing is stopping you from saying that Max Rebo is a jizz master—go crazy! I'm just noting that despite (presumably) there being no vulgar intent behind the term, it doesn't change the fact that most people will read "Max Rebo is a jizz master" and immediately think "lol jizz."

Regardless of whether your intentions are pure, if a certain term instills certain associations in your audience, you can either change it to remove the association or live with the consequences of not doing so. But it's not the audience's fault that "jizz" has an existing meaning that's cemented in their minds, and your newfangled space jazz probably won't supplant that.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#95

Post by ctrlp »

lambda wrote: post #51
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 orig…

It's extremely common for programmers especially to add -er endings to common verbs to describe functions or objects that do that thing. Even if you want to exclude the playful neologisms that use this -er ending (Googler, Redditer) you have only to dig into the archives of classic code to find plenty of examples of this and it usually means "one who X's", in this case, "one who gropes". The scrupulosity brigade being on high alert for any ambiguity notwithstanding.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#96

Post by deadbeeves »

wpietri wrote: post #82
deadbeeves wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd like to know how they arrived at the conclusion that it happens disproportionately.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#97

Post by wpietri »

hobomatic wrote: post #92
wpietri wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

If your point is that life's hard, or that patriarchy is also bad for men, I certainly agree. But neither of those prevents me from recognizing the specific ways that patriarchy is bad for women. Indeed, you might consider that a guy leaping in to a point about misogyny to tangentially focus the discussion back on a man's feelings is an example of the problem.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#98

Post by wpietri »

deadbeeves wrote: post #96
wpietri wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd like to know how they arrived at the conclusion that it happens disproportionately.

I personally arrived at my conclusion through, as I explained, long observation of social media. If you'd like to understand the contents of a book, well, there's a common solution for that.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#99

Post by Zetice »

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…

Eh, too cynical for my tastes.

If you need a list like this, I think a more productive thing you can do is work on is building up resilience to online discourse, usually by reducing ego.

It’ll enable you to take more things at face value, which in turn will expose you to a wider variety of viewpoints.

HN isn’t special, I’m not special, nobody owes me the time it would take to craft a quality response, and expecting or demanding something from strangers usually ends up in disappointment.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#100

Post by deadbeeves »

wpietri wrote: post #91
wpietri wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goi…

And perhaps I should add that if I focused on my supposed good intent to the exclusion of changing, then I'd have to question what my intent was. Or, putting it differently, the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. If I instead make it about my hurt feelings, I'd think that a better indicator of my deeper intent.

>So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women"

If Vanessa makes a complaint and I say "okay, but why should we care that you don't like it?", am I saying that we shouldn't care women don't like it, or am I saying we shouldn't care that Vanessa is the only one who doesn't like it?

>the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent.

I mean, it's your writing. You can do whatever you want. I'm saying a) it's unreasonable to demand that others change what you don't like just because you don't like it, and b) it's not unreasonable for others to ask you to defend your request for changes.

Post reply on HN