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

541–550 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#541

Post by pain »

dang wrote: post #535
pain wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

( 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…

I meet people here fine, some people treat me human. But I/we face a trauma 51% attack. Marginality breaks unconscious voting.

I am beaten being treated as a child for saying pain while everyone counts pay to be called adult.

I have plenty of appropriate help, what I do not have here is an account that survives talking about #Traumahack #Painhack #Centhack without losing my accounts because people use votes to sort feeds without sensible granulate logic filters, avoiding letting us manage and spreadsheet our own research and development fully and fairly literate — logging versus flagging and flogging.

Learning and listening is always hit and miss empathic determination.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#542

Post by DanBC »

foobarqux wrote: post #126
DanBC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone writes a detailed technical blog post and submits it. A few comments are about the content of the post. And then someone makes a comment about the blog CSS or the framework or javascript, wothout mentioning any content of the blog. I get the impression that HN doesn't want those type of comments here.

I very much doubt that is the main category of comment that the new rule is addressing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9236332

Here's the example I was thinking of.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#543

Post by throwawaymaroon »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #534
mreiland wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You just keep talking at him. You don't seem to understand that he's winning. Everything you're saying just slides off him.

He's stated his position and believes it's confirmed by how he's been downvoted and flagkilled. For what it's worth, I think he's right, I think that whatever you think of his comment, the reception was disproportionate; but that doesn't matter now: he's gone.

And you jabber on and on. You find his other comments so you can make him read more, desperate for another chance. You can't walk away.

You hate to lose.

I bet you want to respond with some gimmick about how you're concerned about him. Stop lying to yourself: he left the conversation with you, and you're alone talking to yourself. This is about you now.

(Well, and me. But I'm trying to teach you something about how your constant search for a middle ground is in reality pretty condescending.)

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#544

Post by cw0 »

isaacremuant wrote: post #387
dsugarman wrote: post #15

I think the downvote functionality is holding back the utility of HN more than anything else. It is grossly overused and very rarely for guidelines violations like it was designed for. Most people use to show they disagree with a comment. It's an awful experience and is the main fuel in a negative feedback loop that travels with users from thread to thread.

I agree with you. I don't participate enough to be able to have a downvote option but I've seen how a different viewpoint (mainly one that doesn't align with HN demographics) will often get downvoted and, even though this site seems much better than others in that regard, it will still discourage anyone from posting anything they might consider controversial. Of course, any comment about downvotes is also, understand…

...and you got downvoted. It's absolutely ridiculous that a forum like HN supposedly frequented by the best and brightest has so many immature children.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#545

Post by dang »

vitd wrote: post #490

I think I agree with the spirit of this guideline, but I have serious doubts that it can work. Here's why: I joined HN a year or two ago. I didn't go back and read any posts written before I joined. Anyone joining after today will have no idea that this is the way things are supposed to be. Further, I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong) that a rule like this could end up causing the same issues that people here complai…

> I think I agree with the spirit of this guideline, but I have serious doubts that it can work.

Let's see. HN is experimental, and this is just another experiment. If it works, it will be because community members help shift the culture in a higher-quality direction.

That, by the way, is also how newcomers find out about these things. Rules don't communicate themselves, but culture does.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#547

Post by sjy »

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…

At the risk of further derailing the thread, I wonder if there might be a more inclusive term than 'steel man' — I don't feel great about using that phrase to describe 'the best possible representation of a position.' (The issue is fresh in my mind, since I stumbled across the gender-neutral alternative 'straw person'[1] this morning.)

[1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/18.html, para 21.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#548

Post by ZenoArrow »

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #543
ZenoArrow wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You just keep talking at him. You don't seem to understand that he's winning . Everything you're saying just slides off him. He's stated his position and believes it's confirmed by how he's been downvoted and flagkilled. For what it's worth, I think he's right, I think that whatever you think of his comment, the reception was disproportionate; but that doesn't matter now: he's gone. And you jabber on and on. You find…

"But I'm trying to teach you something about how your constant search for a middle ground is in reality pretty condescending."

Good. So why is it condescending? What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#549

Post by dang »

pain wrote: post #541
dang wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I meet people here fine, some people treat me human. But I/we face a trauma 51% attack. Marginality breaks unconscious voting. I am beaten being treated as a child for saying pain while everyone counts pay to be called adult. I have plenty of appropriate help, what I do not have here is an account that survives talking about #Traumahack #Painhack #Centhack without losing my accounts because people use votes to sort f…

I think if you're losing accounts it might be because those accounts haven't been using the site appropriately.

Anyone dealing honestly with pain has my profound respect, but that doesn't mean it's on topic here, or that it's ok to make dozens of posts about it.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#550

Post by dang »

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #543
ZenoArrow wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You just keep talking at him. You don't seem to understand that he's winning . Everything you're saying just slides off him. He's stated his position and believes it's confirmed by how he's been downvoted and flagkilled. For what it's worth, I think he's right, I think that whatever you think of his comment, the reception was disproportionate; but that doesn't matter now: he's gone. And you jabber on and on. You find…

> And you jabber on and on. [...] You can't walk away. You hate to lose.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Moreover this subthread has gone far off topic. Please stop.

Post reply on HN