Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#31

Post by grzm » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 7:26 PM UTC

chickenfries wrote: post #30

johnwheeler wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s meant to be figurative more than literal.

You won't even defend the quote you posted from it's most obvious criticism?

To everyone in this thread: please step back and ask yourself why you're continuing to comment. Are you looking to be understood? To understand? To prove or show that someone else wrong? If it's not one of the first two, please just stop. If it is one (or both! which is what it should be) of the first two, take another step back and ask yourself what's the most constructive way of accomplishing that goal. Right now you're all just talking past each other, commenting at each other rather than with each other. It doesn't matter how any one else is commenting or how wrong they are: you can only change how you yourself do.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#32

Post by chickenfries » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #31

chickenfries wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't even defend the quote you posted from it's most obvious criticism?

To everyone in this thread: please step back and ask yourself why you're continuing to comment. Are you looking to be understood? To understand? To prove or show that someone else wrong? If it's not one of the first two, please just stop. If it is one (or both! which is what it should be) of the first two, take another step back and ask yourself what's the most constructive way of accomplishing that goal. Right now y…

I like the quality of discussion on HN. I think we should discourage things like posting pithy quotes from comedians. Especially if you won't even stand behind the point you're trying to make.

And yes, I would like my perspective to be understood.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#33

Post by grzm » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

chickenfries wrote: post #32

grzm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To everyone in this thread: please step back and ask yourself why you're continuing to comment. Are you looking to be understood? To understand? To prove or show that someone else wrong? If it's not one of the first two, please just stop. If it is one (or both! which is what it should be) of the first two, take another step back and ask yourself what's the most constructive way of accomplishing that goal. Right now y…

I like the quality of discussion on HN. I think we should discourage things like posting pithy quotes from comedians. Especially if you won't even stand behind the point you're trying to make. And yes, I would like my perspective to be understood.

I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important (perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent: interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may actually have an important point, perhaps not yet fully formed, and aren't expressing it well. And if others are doing the same, they may help you better express your own perspective.

† https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#34

Post by ABCLAW » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #33

chickenfries wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the quality of discussion on HN. I think we should discourage things like posting pithy quotes from comedians. Especially if you won't even stand behind the point you're trying to make. And yes, I would like my perspective to be understood.

I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important (perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent: interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may actually have an important point, perhaps not yet…

I get that you have a pet project in attempting to create civil discussion - that's nice and very commendable. But...

Please apply your own formula to the post you're replying to. Are you understanding what he's telling you, or just trying to tone police?

What happens when your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, and simply posits a position then abandons it immediately? Is it fruitful to create a position for them? Is that a fair burden for a responder to bear to batter down weak, fallacious, but amply spread falsities?

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#35

Post by chickenfries » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #33

chickenfries wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the quality of discussion on HN. I think we should discourage things like posting pithy quotes from comedians. Especially if you won't even stand behind the point you're trying to make. And yes, I would like my perspective to be understood.

I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important (perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent: interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may actually have an important point, perhaps not yet…

I'm familiar with the concept. I try to apply it. Especially when I think the person is arguing in good faith. Which I try to assume.

I understand their point, because they're just repeating the title of a blog post that hit the front page a while back. There was some good faith discussion in that thread between people who disagreed. They didn't start by throwing out a pithy quote and then refusing to respond to someone who presents a valid counter example (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16086244).

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#36

Post by grzm » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #34

grzm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important (perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent: interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may actually have an important point, perhaps not yet…

I get that you have a pet project in attempting to create civil discussion - that's nice and very commendable. But... Please apply your own formula to the post you're replying to. Are you understanding what he's telling you, or just trying to tone police? What happens when your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, and simply posits a position then abandons it immediately? Is it frui…

I do my best to apply my own formula: after all, if I don't think it's worthwhile to do, it would be disingenuous for me to recommend others to do it. I think I do understand where they're coming from, which is why I built upon that in my follow-up comment.

Re-reading my comments above, one thing I think that could be improved is the use of "you": it's colloquial to use it to refer to a person in general as opposed to the person you're currently responding to, and that can be misread (perhaps even unconsciously), particularly when discussions get heated.

Do you have other recommendations as to how this might be better conveyed? What indications do you have that I'm misreading 'chickenfries? I recognize that whether I actually am misreading them (which is always a possibility) and whether or not you read me as misreading them are distinct, and it's my responsibility to do my best to reduce the likelihood of mismatch.

As for your last paragraph, ff you've determined your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop, which is what I recommended in my initial comment. You're right, I don't think it's fruitful to create a position for them. Continuing the discussion at that point just adds noise and arguably degrades the forum. FWIW, I'll take my own advice here if I decide that my contributions to this thread are contributing more heat than light.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#37

Post by ABCLAW » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #36

ABCLAW wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that you have a pet project in attempting to create civil discussion - that's nice and very commendable. But... Please apply your own formula to the post you're replying to. Are you understanding what he's telling you, or just trying to tone police? What happens when your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, and simply posits a position then abandons it immediately? Is it frui…

I do my best to apply my own formula: after all, if I don't think it's worthwhile to do, it would be disingenuous for me to recommend others to do it. I think I do understand where they're coming from, which is why I built upon that in my follow-up comment. Re-reading my comments above, one thing I think that could be improved is the use of "you": it's colloquial to use it to refer to a person in general as opposed t…

>in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop

Sure, because you're focused on the quality of conversation. That's what you're optimizing for. For others, who are interested in the quality of available information, posting a quick rebuttal to signal to other readers that the post in question has issues may be preferable.

I see plenty of misleading and dangerous musings about law on the forum from people who don't know better and frankly don't care to know better; your advice would be to walk away. Mine is to signal to individual that there is clear and present danger in treating the post's content as factual.

You view that response as creating noise. I don't.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#38

Post by grzm » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #37

grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do my best to apply my own formula: after all, if I don't think it's worthwhile to do, it would be disingenuous for me to recommend others to do it. I think I do understand where they're coming from, which is why I built upon that in my follow-up comment. Re-reading my comments above, one thing I think that could be improved is the use of "you": it's colloquial to use it to refer to a person in general as opposed t…

>in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop Sure, because you're focused on the quality of conversation. That's what you're optimizing for. For others, who are interested in the quality of available information, posting a quick rebuttal to signal to other readers that the post in question has issues may be preferable. I see plenty of misleading and dangerous musings about law on the forum from people who don…

I agree that it's important to point out things that are actually harmful. That quick rebuttal needs to include more than a snarky snipe, an insult, or a statement that "No, you're wrong." If that's all that's being added, you may as well just downvote, which is, among other things, an indication that the comment isn't a worthwhile contribution.

To be useful and more than noise, it needs to actually rebut the point in line or pointing to additional resources. HN is pretty good on that point: the community is large enough that it's going to get addressed well. Quality of conversation and quality of information needn't be at odds, and both are addressed in the guidelines.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#39

Post by tomhoward » Sun, Jan 07, 2018, 1:16 PM UTC

johnwheeler wrote: post #8

goalieca wrote: post #5

> So why does it feel like the world is in decline Because our environment is on the decline. Our oceans are full of plastic, our forests are converted to farmland for cattle, pollution from electronics is rising, and our global climate is changing for the worse. Even optimistic areas like health care are being confounded by obesity and malnutrition. It’s great that global health care and poverty rates are improving.…

Yet, you write this on a Computer, which wouldnt be possible without those fossil fuels that pushed us through the industrial revolution and onto the technical revolution and gave us those plastics. I think it’s crazy to assume we won’t find answers to the problems you bring up and take a sky is falling attitude when you look at the track record of human progress. Even though your friends are struggling to find jobs,…

they’re likely living better than John D. Rockefeller did

This may be true in material terms but it assumes that material wellbeing is all that counts.

The reason this comment triggered such a strong reaction is that it dismisses the emotional distress that goes along with being at the bottom of the socioeconomic pile.

Factors like student debt, medical costs and the general costs of living in many places put many people into profound distress, that can turn into unbearable chronic misery, for which air conditioning seems like small consolation.

I agree with your overall point, and I am one of those that is able to take an optimistic view of the future and trust that problems that seem like existential threats now can be resolved in time.

But I'd urge you to be sensitive enough to anticipate the kinds of reactions you'll trigger when you make a claim like this, even if it's true by the narrow definition you've chosen.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#40

Post by dang » Sun, Jan 07, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

johnwheeler wrote: post #8

goalieca wrote: post #5

> So why does it feel like the world is in decline Because our environment is on the decline. Our oceans are full of plastic, our forests are converted to farmland for cattle, pollution from electronics is rising, and our global climate is changing for the worse. Even optimistic areas like health care are being confounded by obesity and malnutrition. It’s great that global health care and poverty rates are improving.…

Yet, you write this on a Computer, which wouldnt be possible without those fossil fuels that pushed us through the industrial revolution and onto the technical revolution and gave us those plastics. I think it’s crazy to assume we won’t find answers to the problems you bring up and take a sky is falling attitude when you look at the track record of human progress. Even though your friends are struggling to find jobs,…

Many of your comments in this thread have broken the HN guidelines by being flamebait or outright flamewar. It's one thing to express a considered point of view and another to get into ideological mud wrestling. Please don't post like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks from your recent history like you've primarily been using HN for ideological battle. That destroys what this site is supposed to be for, so we ban accounts that do it. Please don't do it. That is also in the site guidelines.