New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

Post by svachalek » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

Jimmy wrote: post #244

svachalek wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative? That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. While everyone tends to think their own opinion is an incredibly valuable gift to the world, the world rarely receives it as such. > Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I he…

>That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. That doesn't explain at all why something would be "gratuitously negative". I can contribute my opinion that the sky is blue and provide no evidence or arguments. But if I only say "The sky is blue," and nothing else, then it doesn't look like I'm being "gratuitously negative".

Post by haberman » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #76

dman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. Conflating disagreement with downvoting seems to be mixing unrelated concerns. It is currently inconvenient (in karma terms) to hold dissenting opinions.

My experience tends to be that if you can hold a dissenting opinion respectfully, and back up your assertions, HN treats it favorably in the long run. Holding a dissenting opinion without being willing to defend it with awareness of your audience's hostility to your ideas rarely goes over well in any forum, though.

Post by throwawaymaroon » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

pain wrote: post #240

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck is a fluidic writer doing in this haunt of logic? Wonderful to stumble across your ologies; keep churning, spurning, turning the logos as you see fit, my friend.

logologicalities* u mean? =)) =∫∫ Hurting here :/ Neighborhood webwatchers still pitchforking to make odd ends meet, even though we can also log and filter listening memercy with that tool memery, hunting predates and predominates gathering emotional-intelligence memresistors.

Post by dang » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #194

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen several accounts that have posted daily for years completely unaware nobody is seeing anything they post. I may be in the minority here, but I do not consider this a good result for anyone.

Agreed. Wish there was a way to upvote dead comments that I liked to contribute to their status being reconsidered.

Post by hyperpallium » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:53 PM UTC

wamatt wrote: post #256

Udo wrote: post #8

One of the most negative habits is in my opinion the failure to read a comment charitably (to make an effort to interpret it in the best possible light). Instead, people often tend to misread or miserunderstand what's being said, only to use the opportunity to write a "correction" based on that false impression. A worse flavor of the same problem is a misunderstanding that is then used to justify outrage or personal…

This comment brings to mind the concept of the the steel man [1][2] . Steelmanning an argument means to go one step further. In addition to selecting the most charitable parts of another person's argument, one seeks to improve on it, by making it the best possible representation of the other persons position. From there, one can offer their own counterpoint, to this improved version. [1] https://themerelyreal.wordpre…