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

211–215 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#211

Post by lapcat »

maksimur wrote: post #210
lapcat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that could The question isn't whether it's possible, the question is whether it actually happens.

It happened to me and a friend, who too is in the IT and we go to great length to be anonymous. If something is possible to such a degree, it ought to happen. If it happened to us, it surely happens to somebody else too, especially considering that most people are not too concerned about hiding their trails.

> It happened to me and a friend, who too is in the IT

What happened exactly?

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#212

Post by haswell »

wpietri wrote: post #206
haswell wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Life's too short to waste time on the "change my mind" crowd. I held this view for a long time, but anecdotally, people who disagree with me in person are generally willing to have a good faith conversation about it. I rarely encounter the "change my mind" (with no intention of doing so) type of individual outside of popular social media platforms, and don't think the attitude is as prevalent as Twitter/Facebook/Re…

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The "'change my mind' crowd" I'm referring to is absolutely your group 3, or what I referred to as "the propagandists and the purposeful jerks". They're people acting the same way that Sartre was criticizing here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-... Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew#Bad_faith And I'll note that he was writing well before on…

> And I'll note that he was writing well before on-line discussion. The problems run deeper.

I don't question that. My point was that the Internet magnifies it. It's far easier to encounter that type of individual now than at any other point in history.

> But I say again that blocking bad-faith actors is not, as you claim, the heart of why discourse is broken online

To be clear, this was not my claim, and I should have made that more clear. My point was that the instinct to block and the default assumption of bad faith is at the heart of the problems (and as I acknowledged, it's just one of many). My point was that people block other people without even considering whether the question was in good/bad faith, and assume bad faith based on the existence of any disagreement. You can find this happening from all ideological viewpoints across social media. When it's antisemitism, it's obviously bad behavior.

It's why places like HN still have pockets of decent discussion. Assuming good faith is encoded into the rules, which often reveals that disagreements are caused by an incomplete understanding of the other, rather than actual bad behavior. I couldn't have raised the points I raised in this thread on a place like Twitter without getting lambasted by people claiming I hate women, or support groping, or somesuch.

I'm all for blocking bad-faith actors and I do my flagging duty here when needed.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#213

Post by halfinvested »

wpietri wrote: post #202
halfinvested wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened Most experts are idiots (specifically “intellectual yet idiot“). Protecting bad ideas (expert or not) against criticism is an immense danger to society. If your ideas and findings can’t stand on their own, I can’t help but think they must not be very strong. Oh and if you think that what you post on the internet is yo…

Your inability (or, more likely, refusal) to distinguish between valid criticism of ideas and abuse, harassment and threats is a fine example of a core problem of online dialog.

abuse, harassment and threats targeted at people are illegal. I agree that they're unacceptable.

Ideas have no such legal protection, for good reason. If they are stupid or poorly presented, they can be dunked on for cool points. This is one kind of activity people enjoy doing and spectating on public forums, and it's a net positive to society.

> I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened

> Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?

You keep mentioning feelings. This is what I'm responding to. I get the impression that you want the law to step in and silence other people when you feel bad. In public, such an arrangement is stupid. Conversely, it can be beneficial in private spaces where participants consent to community guidelines, formal or informal, at the outset.

If we agree that policing public speech based solely on what people feel is a bad policy, then this whole conversation has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And if we disagree, all I can leave you with is this: what if whatever harmless, perfectly legal thing you say makes somebody else feel bad? Should you be silenced?

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#214

Post by MonaroVXR »

BurningFrog wrote: post #182
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…

These people may have decent raw intelligence, but they're NOT smart! Actually smart people know what they know and don't know, constantly test their understanding, and are HAPPY when proven wrong, since that means they learned something new.

I'm always waiting to be corrected and it's difficult since I correct myself and others don't know it.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#215

Post by kirso »

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…

It just takes an incredible level of self-awareness and vulnerability.

Everyone thinks that the way to convince people to trust them or acknowledge them is to be know-it-all, but the truth is just being authentic and help will come.

Post reply on HN