Some tactics for writing in public • Hacker News Board

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#131

Post by zarathustreal » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #124

zarathustreal wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, on both points. I, like the person you're responding to, have experienced the zeitgeist of HN and have come to the same conclusion of a prevailing mid-to-far-left social policy. Again I agree with GP on the points they make about voting, in fact I think we should get rid of votes altogether. The fact is, for most people a vote is a reflection of who they are, not the comment th…

> I, like the person you're responding to, have experienced the zeitgeist of HN I'm sure you have. And I've experienced the opposite. There's a natural tendency to pay more attention to criticism of one's own views and to come to believe that only one's own views are persecuted, based on one's anecdotal experience, but that view isn't empirically accurate in the aggregate. Again, dang, who has observed countless thes…

While I hear what you're saying, it's bordering on an appeal to authority. Dang is just one person and has his own set of biases

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#132

Post by javajosh » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

EatingWithForks wrote: post #123

javajosh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. 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 proba…

Julian Evans isn't obligated to welcome people who wish her harm or want to make her life worse by arguing in bad faith. No one is obligated to welcome people who treat them poorly. I don't care if someone is hurt by my blocking them if they shout slurs at me, for example, and I don't think I should be morally obligated to consider if someone had their feelings hurt by ostracized for shouting slurs at people.

>Julian Evans isn't obligated to welcome people who wish her harm

Indeed. I take issue though with assuming a person arguing that "grope" has meanings other than sexual assault wish her harm. That's a stretch, to say the least. It's certainly uncharitable and, in my view, chilling to open conversation. Moreover I think it weakens the idea of "wishing someone harm" by broadening it so widely that it becomes almost meaningless.

There is a game I invented called "Take it Personal" in which one player says anodyne things to the other and the other player has to take it personally and get offended, or they lose the point. It's a terrible game that I don't recommend. It's a game that everyone on the internet seems to enjoy playing, and in fact take pride in playing it and assert that anyone not playing it is a bad person.

Remarkable.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#133

Post by guy98238710 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:56 PM UTC

Is it just me or is this post screaming with self-consciousness and political correctness? Author is self-censoring policy suggestions and social/cultural insights, which I personally find interesting to write and read about, especially the weirder ones that provide transformational experience. And the dig-related blocking is just jarring. It makes it look like the author is quick on the trigger.

PS: I just noticed that all comments in this thread that are even slightly critical are downvoted below zero. My own comment too. It's normal to see critical comments ignored (not upvoted) here, but downvoting anything remotely critical below zero is unusual even by HN standards. I guess a post about self-censorship attracts audience that desires this strange new self-conscious world where everyone has to nod to everyone else.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#134

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:04 PM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #129

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…

> If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. If original intent doesn’t matter, your audience shouldn’t differentiate between writing which is intentionally offensive and accidentally so. That is, they may as well assume you are malicious. That’s not the world I want to live in. It’s also not the world we do live in. English is the most widely spoken language on the pl…

It's more that intent was irrelevant than any intent should be presumed.

Word meanings drift and we update as we go. That doesn't mean the previous author was evil; it means they were writing in a different context and the context is defunct. Especially for a living document like the documentation of a still-used tool, modifying word choice to avoid unintended negative connotation is wise.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#135

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:11 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #107

justin_oaks wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. 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 proba…

> But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism

Mastodon has a time-gated mute feature, which is quite useful. If someone is being annoying, but not so annoying that you want to squelch them indefinitely, you can just hit them with mute for awhile so they can cool off.

... but Julia is under no obligation to serve as teacher of online etiquette to folks who don't know when to self-squelch, so if she wants to grab the block button instead, she's plenty entitled to do so. Her feed her rules; if people want the privilege of getting her signal, they can behave themselves.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#136

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

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.

It's more than healthy; it's mandatory.

In the Internet, we have built an unlimited stream of information. You could quit your job and do nothing but post and reply full-time, and you'd never get near being able to respond to every commenter if everyone who read what you wrote chose to comment.

Filtering signal from noise is a vital skill in the online era. And sure, if your filter is over-tight you'll end up in an echo chamber... But as there's no penalty for being wrong on the Internet, a healthy filter is downsampling a lot of information these days.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#137

Post by spencerflem » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

zarathustreal wrote: post #120

lapcat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, s…

I'm going to have to disagree with you, on both points. I, like the person you're responding to, have experienced the zeitgeist of HN and have come to the same conclusion of a prevailing mid-to-far-left social policy. Again I agree with GP on the points they make about voting, in fact I think we should get rid of votes altogether. The fact is, for most people a vote is a reflection of who they are, not the comment th…

fwiw, as someone who identifies as mid to far left, hackernews is not. I like the place for its tech news but not the politics.

and, while I don't know your viewpoints, i promise you I think mine are True and Important as well

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#138

Post by gremlinunderway » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

lanstin wrote: post #59

>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…

Yeah, there's a really odd all or nothing kind of attitude with knowledge, experience or skill, as if "being smart" is like a linear growth Pokemon level-thing rather than being more like a radar chart of skills and experience.

Which I find so odd and absurd in a profession that's full of esoteric knowledge. Being experienced and smart obviously is a huge asset, but if you just aren't familiar with library X but new guy with no experience has been doing nothing but library X, the latter guy is the one to take advice from.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#139

Post by hathchip » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

deadbeeves wrote: post #127

hathchip wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said 'by a different etymology'. It's not a different etymology if they knew and were referring to the other meaning.

That's not how etymology is determined. The etymology of a word describes the reason why it's spelled or spoken the way it is. "Jizz" was chosen because it sounds like "jazz", but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different. We can suppose that if the slang for sperm didn't exist that the writer would definitely have chosen "jezz", "juzz"…

It's hard to believe you're not simply trying to satirise the people jvns complained about, who repeatedly pretend to believe that an obvious choice of words to make a sexual joke was not chosen for that reason.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#140

Post by javajosh » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #135

javajosh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. 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 proba…

> But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism Mastodon has a time-gated mute feature, which is quite useful. If someone is being annoying, but not so annoying that you want to squelch them indefinitely, you can just hit them with mute for awhile so they can cool off. ... but Julia is under no obligation to serve as teacher of online etiquette to folks who don't know when to self-squelch, s…

I guess I don't see the point in arguing that someone has the right to be offended. Of course they do. Everyone does. But is it a good thing? Isn't being offended a bad thing? Doesn't it feel bad to be offended, and doesn't it also feel bad to be the person giving offense? Doesn't it make sense to try as hard as possible to not get offended, to wait as long as possible, to give every benefit of the doubt, before being offended?

The tacit assumption here is that being offended is a good thing. That its a point of pride. I disagree, very strongly. Offense weakens relationships, and dehumanizes the one giving offense. It's not the offense is always illegitimate, it's that it's a reaction of last resort, and encouraging others to take offense is bias in the wrong direction. We should encourage others (and ourselves) to take the least offense possible. That way when we do take offense it's quite meaningful.