101–110 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" because it implies slavery. In the same way, she assumes someone defending the word is in favor of sexual assault. This is wrong and harmful, both to others and herself. To others because now they can't follow her posts; to herself because she's cut herself off from people who take the risk to argue something unpopular in good faith. This is how echo chambers form.
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…
I have on a number of occasions misread a statement as its opposite (skimming over a 'not' or forgetting important context, perhaps). That might offend me to the point of making an argument, and I think it would be crazy for me to expect an apology rather than a "I didn't say that, you argumentative prick".
That's the extreme case, where the error is unquestionably my own, but there's a vast gray area where I might default to a less than charitable interpretation of someone's words and they haven't done anything wrong. For example, if someone were to describe my word choice as gross[1], I might take that as a personal insult. Putting the responsibility on the writer to account for every possible interpretation from every possible audience member is a great way to abolish good writing altogether.
[1] Using this example not to go after the author here in particular, but to avoid using a more divisive example that's not already part of the conversation
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
Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" becaus…
On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity.
Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We don't have to assume EVERYONE is innocent, especially if they're mixed in a crowd of hecklers. Each person has the option of using the block functionality as an automatic way to ignore sets of people, even if it catches the innocent.
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…
I agree with these rules. I would add: * Always assume that no one will reply to a comment. Threads of comments are at most loosely based on a theme.
And yet it's very common to get no replies to any given comment. And that fact in itself is a common reason for people not to reply. Because it's likely nobody will reply to them!
Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" becaus…
What you say makes a lot of sense. It would do us all well to seek to ask more questions and seek to understand before reaching for the block button. On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We…
Nor would I. But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism. It concerns me how easily we ostracize, how it cheapens people. This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it.
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…
The idea of writing and sharing thoughts is an ancient one. Engaging with that content in an easily publishable and shareable way, is.
The quoted sentence above is 100% right. If you replace "On the internet" with "In a book," and I think the sentence would highlight the differences with the internet a bit clearer.
The internet is unique from a book because others can engage with it in a real way (beyond a book club). A book club keeps that proximity, familiarity, and expressions together for better communication. An online forum loses all of these.
Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" becaus…
Not having those people in the discussion isn't an 'echo chamber', any more than asking a belligerent drunk gatecrasher to leave your birthday party creates an echo chamber.
Note that it doesn't matter whether or not these people are factually correct or not about the etymology of 'dig' for this to be the right conclusion for Julia to draw.
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…