Hacker News is depressing

You can tell someone “you suck, go back to the corner of the Internet you came from, I don't have time for this”, or you can tell them “your skills don't seem to be quite at the level where we can accept your contributions; in particular, you don't understand X, Y, and Z very well and it shows in your code. I'm short on time, but if someone else has time to explain why that would be great.”

The difference is almost immeasurable between those two interactions, even though they are saying the same thing.

I've made this point before regarding derision, which I think is the true issue. I'll quote myself, since I've already written the thing[1]:

“Derision is not curtness. It is not impatience. It is explicit, intentional putting-down of someone because they aren't as good at something as you are or think they should be. And it is a poison. Unfortunately, if you take it frequently enough, it becomes habit. It becomes second nature. And you stop noticing it's poisonous. And so, unfortunately, it is an oft-enjoyed poison in intellectual circles. It doesn't help anything. It doesn't help you understand the world or other people. It doesn't really save you that much time. It simply makes you feel better about yourself.”

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4921579

/b/ has the reputation of being a sewer, and people who don't frequent 4chan see them as being equivalent.

Outside of /b/, 4chan is great. In fact, one of the reasons that /b/ still even exists is that they just post in /x/ and elsewhere. Best to honeypot them.

Dude writes really whiney content. And then there's his name. That's super unfortunate. That's not, like, a slam on his family or a dig about his person. That's just a linguistic observation.

If I made compost bins, for example, that's a completely legit parallel for someone to point out, even if silly.

"Anti-social" behavior according to whom and to what extent and for what purpose? For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility?

> I still see people confusing the two.

There is no confusion. People want to be themselves and want a culture to cater to that. Instead you want a culture that caters to your needs. Which is fine, but that is no global definition of what that is and how to implement it. The idea that everyone and every community should conform to these feminizing norms is highly flawed. And is totally arbitrary.

> Both behaviours will leave adults concluding

Massive generalization. Adults, eh? Fuck you for calling any ideals that don't conform to your to be childish.

> mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30.

The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society. That's what religions attempt to do, and fail all the time doing. There are no ideals that fit every community or even all of society. To attempt to create such ideals is essentially social engineering. It's the purview of totalitarians.

> intelligent conversation about tech and startups

Fuck you for calling people who don't conform to your norms unintelligent.

I'll preface what I think with this: I grew up with a computer since the early 90s. I used BBS's, and online communities since then. Internet culture always seemed to me to be very abusive, with very few exceptions. And as Dave says, there is a whole aspect of anonymity that makes people very comfortable when saying whatever they want, since they feel there will be no retribution.

For me, HN is one of the better places when compared to other forums I visit, such as music ones (not the technical side of music, by the way).

The one common problem I see is a user not giving another the benefit of the doubt. When I took an online course at university, the prof sent us a link regarding "Netiquette". It was actually very interesting. I can't find the exact one he sent the class, but it was something like this: http://ctlt.ubc.ca/distance-learning/learner-support/communi...

Anyway, one thing that stuck with me is asking genuine, courteous or friendly questions when you disagree with someone. There were many, many times when I would read someone's point of view which I thought were absolutely false. But I took the recommended route of asking a question to clear up some information. This is what I mean by giving the person the benefit of the doubt.

I think a lot of people worry that all of this is a competition and everyone's out to prove they are right. It is difficult to admit one is wrong, I know. But those who are sometimes right go out of their way to try and humiliate others with snarky or sarcastic comments. I used to be exactly like that when I was a kid participating in online communities in the 90s. Then I read something Oscar Wilde wrote: One should always play fairly when one has the winning cards.

It's pretty simple, but it works. You think you're right? Fine. But play nice. It may seem disingenuous, but ask questions which you think will lead the person to what you think is right. I've done it and many times the person knew something I didn't. Sometimes we were talking about different things. Sometimes I was right, but hey, at least the person learnt something new, and I learnt how to be a better person. And, of course, many times I was wrong, and I think to myself, "I'm glad I wasn't an asshole to him/her right off the bat".

I think we would benefit from interacting with others online the way we would if we were talking to them in person.