New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity • Hacker News Board

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#671

Post by mreiland » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #569

mreiland wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, fair enough, I did say that. I guess my point is that the word is too broad and that isn't how I meant it. They're not important enough in my life for me to spend my time worrying about. Or maybe I should say I don't get emotionally involved in anything they say at that point. They live in whatever bubble they live in and it has nothing to do with me. And that some might consider it respect that I simply let them…

I'm genuinely confused. When someone makes an idiotic comments the options are: i) ignore them ii) call them an idiot iii) explain why they're wrong All these new guidelines are askig you avoid is ii). This thread has a few other people saying that criticism is valuable. But the guidelines are not asking people to stop giving criticism! They're just asking people to avoid either needless negativity or personal negati…

I specifically replied to a comment roughly stating that part of the issue with HN is people who choose option i) by stating I choose option i) and I do it fairly quickly because I have better things to do with my time than give everyone an equal share of both my time and my respect.

I don't want to explain why someone is wrong, they don't care. Do you know how often I've corrected someone online and had them not deny the problem?

Not often enough for me to spend my time worrying about it.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#672

Post by mreiland » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 6:20 PM UTC

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #639

ZenoArrow wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Sorry this took so long. I was rate-limited and still rate-limited before I went to sleep. >What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with? To start, here it feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was offensive to be reasonable with those you disagree with. Now I can see, on closer reading, that you're just extending what I said about finding a middle ground…

> I'd like to broaden something out to make a meta-point, though, because none of that explains why mreiland was so deliberate about ignoring you. In some sense, the conversation is about the right to write someone off. It's a right mreiland exercised gleefully in your case; perhaps even a touch too gleefully, but even that's part of the point: it's his right to do so if he chooses, because you can't force him into a conversation.

Exactly it. Normally I just stop responding, but I was making a point.

Putting real effort into each and every internet conversation in which a disagreement happens will leave you emotionally drained and angry at the world.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#673

Post by mreiland » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 6:21 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #603

ZenoArrow wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Does that make me closed minded? So. Fucking. Be it, I'm closed minded. I learned that from experience." I can't remember where I read it, but someone I believe was wise once said 'Our first approximation of other people is ourselves'. If I considered myself to be closed minded, it seems to be a burden. Sure, it would make some things simpler, but it's also quite isolating. Furthermore, it's too simplistic, no one i…

Somebody said that the people who don't care are the people who once cared too much. Perhaps those who now consider themselves close-minded are those who have seen too many stupid ideas?

I think that's somewhat true of me.

I'm still apt to argue and discuss until the cows come home, but I have to evaluate the other person first to determine if it's worth the emotional effort.

You never know if you're arguing with a 50 year old who has seen some shit or a 17 year old who has read some shit. One of those is more useful to argue with than the other.