Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#531

Post by dang »

ryanx435 wrote: post #454
OmarIsmail wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two choices in how to take this most recent reply. I can be the cynic and "think critically" and think you're just trying to come up with justifications for your snide remark after the fact. OR I can be charitable and believe that you're being honest, and really were trying to not be negative/overly cynical and instead acting as a reminder. What you'll notice is that in your original comment you were not chari…

I didn't realize it before, but this new guideline is probably targeting people exactly like myself. likely why I only have 40 some karma after however many years I've been on here. so I guess I'll go back to lurking, since I'm not a member of the portion of the population that knows how to comment properly. does this make me bitter? yeah. but I'm human and I'm allowed to have emotions, no matter how irrational. is i…

You don't have to go back to lurking if you don't want to. What we're asking for can very much be learned. Like a lot of people here, I started out as a caustic commenter. I thought that was a good thing to do, for a bunch of reasons, and it took me a long time to realize that it was a net negative.

There's a lot of learning behind these guidelines and some of us learned it the hard way. You don't have to. Your fellow community members will give you amazingly thoughtful and practical feedback if you show any sign of wanting sincerely to improve.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#532

Post by pain »

hyperpallium wrote: post #279
wamatt wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Theatre Sports (competitive collaborative dramatic improvisation) has the concepts of offer , accept , and block . Accepting an offer means to build on it in some way, as a real part of the scene - in the way you mean. A block is when you ignore or undermine the offer , denying it instead of building on it. There's temptation to do so for a cheap laugh. The uncharitable negativity of HN seems similar.

Log is an act we miss. (Change is act limited by log law.)

The steelmanning combinatorially #buildingmentalhealth and emotional regulation while mods are drone operators hiddren unrestricted violently cutting and copping audit logs to get page views clear for what depth of order of self empowerment determination?

[1] http://web.archive.org/*/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i... [2] https://archive.today/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9... [3] http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1428133249694151

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#533

Post by frik »

dragonwriter wrote: post #383
abalone wrote: post #236

Can we also have a rule against Gratuitous Positivity? Seriously, it's a slippery slope. "Nothing of substance" is a term that needs more clarification that what that post provides. It seems to suggest that if the criticism is too harsh, then it's no longer substantial. I think there's a better guideline than that. The best ideas not only can withstand criticism, they get better with criticism. If you examine what's…

> Can we also have a rule against Gratuitous Positivity? We could, but I don't see any evidence that there is an amount of that going around that requires an addition to the guidelines.

Especially on Show HN posts, there are people that can be categorized as fanboys and haters. Both groups add nothing substantial to the discussion. The constructive, interesting and insightful comments come from the normal users.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#534

Post by ZenoArrow »

mreiland wrote: post #469
chris_wot wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if you see a bullshit opinion or statement, there are ways of refuting it that don't need the level of aggression you are showing here. Here's an example: homeopathy. If someone believes in it, then you can give counter statements without calling them an idiot. You can explain that you believe it's without basis through reasoned argument, and you absolutely should show respect for the other person. You don'…

And yet, some would probably argue that refusing to engage at all shows a certain amount of respect for a person's right to have an opinion. The issue is one of using a word that can be applied to both sides of the argument. I was quite clear from the very beginning. This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Take ZenoArrow, for example. Why have I chosen to complete…

"In ZenoArrow's case it's the arrogance of his thinking he can manipulate me into whatever direction he wants to go."

We clearly disagreed, I'll not deny that, but the arrogance and manipulation you're referring to was an invitation to comment on something I believe is fundamental. I didn't tell you whether you had to agree, but instead was looking for the point at which our opinions diverged. I can't make you agree with me, nor would I necessarily want to, a world where we all thought the same would be lesser for it, instead I'd prefer to find out about the thoughts guiding our differences.

Perhaps the problem was that I wasn't angry, that you needed conflict in order to bring out what you could've said. I can't be sure that it's true for you, but in my experience some people are fuelled by that sort of drama. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not what I personally want.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#535

Post by dang »

pain wrote: post #519
spacehome wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pain, I say this with empathy. Do you have doctors telling you to take medication? Please take that medication.

( I am fine enough to find some work. Do you judge a book by its intergenerativational grammar? We systems are trauma-sensitive much? Map(.org empathy deeper? Read us well? I have help and medical history. Do we need me to explain vital signs to record-keep my account and read my own comments without feeling constant random erasure for talking about pain? I am often trolled for talking about pain. Problem solving tra…

It's good to hear that you're fine enough to find some work and that you have help. As someone who has also been through a lot of pain, I find that some of your comments resonate. I feel a positive intention in them even when I don't understand the words.

At the same time, a semi-anonymous online forum is not a great place to process major pain. What you need (in my experience) is warm connection with specific people you can trust. Internet comments aren't real enough for anything but a small portion of that. To heal real pain, you need more. I hope you find that too.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#536

Post by DanBC »

mreiland wrote: post #469
chris_wot wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if you see a bullshit opinion or statement, there are ways of refuting it that don't need the level of aggression you are showing here. Here's an example: homeopathy. If someone believes in it, then you can give counter statements without calling them an idiot. You can explain that you believe it's without basis through reasoned argument, and you absolutely should show respect for the other person. You don'…

And yet, some would probably argue that refusing to engage at all shows a certain amount of respect for a person's right to have an opinion. The issue is one of using a word that can be applied to both sides of the argument. I was quite clear from the very beginning. This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Take ZenoArrow, for example. Why have I chosen to complete…

> This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

Your first flagged comment says:

> I'm quick to write off people and I won't apologize for it. I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect.

So people think it's about respect because you explicitly said it was about respect.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#537

Post by pain »

tptacek wrote: post #270
lexcorvus wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their guidelines are hypocritical, i.e., bad. To spell it out explicitly: the -isms rule is probably fine as far as it goes, but if HN is going to be inspired by the Recurse Center's policies, it should go a step further and officially discourage the Recurse Center's brand of pious discrimination as well.

How could this sentiment possibly have anything to do with Hacker News? Much to my disappointment, Hacker News doesn't offer financial aid to commenters.

Maybe that basic income, basic speechcome, could help make some sense of logic pains.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#538

Post by dang »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #499
mreiland wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that are curious, brazzle and myself got into it a while back about his league of legends addiction and he's kind of kept tabs on me ever since. For those who can think critically though, the post he's referencing was about 1.5 years ago. An awful lot of reading for someone who did nothing more than state an opinion about not wasting time on people.

>For those that are curious, brazzle and myself got into it a while back about his league of legends addiction and he's kind of kept tabs on me ever since. Are you being serious? >An awful lot of reading for someone who did nothing more than state an opinion about not wasting time on people. Not if you're picking posts at random. And you've done more than that and you know it. If nothing else you know it from the rea…

This has gone far off topic and it's time for both of you to stop.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#540

Post by DanBC »

mreiland wrote: post #323
Squarel wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is in how you respond to the person. So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard. Did you ever change anyones mind by screamin…

> So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. I would dismiss them and go on with my life. > Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? I'm curious as to why you think my statement about dismissing people implies "screaming" at them? When I dismiss someone…

This thread is about commenting on an online forum. If yu are not commenting the entire thread can be ignored. You have replied to the thread. Thus, you are not talking about things you imagine when you read a dumb comment because noone cares about that. You are talking about the style of comments you leave so i'm not sure why you're talking about when you're not leaving comments.
Post reply on HN