Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments

#11

Post by rhaway84773 » Sun, Aug 13, 2023, 2:55 AM UTC

version_five wrote: post #3

The example isn't very good or maybe I didn't get it. The girlfriend concedes that the guy is right (and obviously doesn't care) but tells him the framing is wrong and he should be thinking about the thoughtfulness angle, not worrying that the underlying industry is a scam. As someone who rants about stuff a lot, I recognize the discussion. Nobody cares that you think the entire X industry is a scam, they want to hav…

I don’t understand the example either.

I’m not sure how much more one can address an argument than agree with it completely, which is what the girlfriend in the example did.

Re: Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments

#12

Post by behan » Sun, Aug 13, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

Awesome discourse and discussion. My main takeaway here is that my example could be greatly improved aha.

Re: Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments

#13

Post by southernplaces7 » Sun, Aug 13, 2023, 9:45 PM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #6

I am amused the clearly gender-normative behaviour here which could easily be considered sexist. But let's be clear: the thiught that counts here could be otherwise re-interpreted as "I am buying you this gift card specifically because I know you like this brand and will most surely use it". Of course this argument gets more meek if you are just buying some "generic" gift card in which case you could just give someon…

>I am amused the clearly gender-normative behaviour here which could easily be considered sexist.

So what's the offensive and sexist gender-normative behavior here? Is it that Jimmy is a man who happens to have a girlfriend named Josephine? You do know that millions of couples around the world exist who are exactly like this and not at all existentially ashamed and politically chagrined by being with each other? So did the post do incorrect-think by making even a minimal reference to a heterosexual couple in an extremely normal, completely common context between them?