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

The Dying Art of Disagreement

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#71

Post by tptacek »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #22
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between ideas and people who put those ideas into practice. Marx was just a writer. Lenin or Stalin—I don’t think you can respectfully disagree about them.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whose government routinely murdered gay people, among other nasty behaviors) gave a speech at Columbia University. While the speech was (rightly) protested, he was not shouted down, nor was he forced to flee from a violent mob.

Ok, so let's simply stipulate that whatever adversity Kissinger faces, so too should Ahmadinejad, who is also loathsome.

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#72

Post by trentnix »

jim-jim-jim wrote: post #58
crispinb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is, once this perspective gains a footing, it metastasises to the point where civil disagreement becomes almost impossible anywhere, and on any topic. That seems to be happening now. Here in Australia, for instance, we have the marriage equality postal survey going on as mentioned in the article (a daft exercise in fake democracy to appease a far-right party faction, but let's put that aside for now). I h…

I picked the names in the parent comment carefully. I'm not advocating no-platforming as a blanket policy for anybody I disagree with. I'm just saying if you have a death toll attached to your name, maybe you don't deserve the same respect afforded to somebody who simply has an unpopular opinion.

Even when you qualify with your "death toll" litmus test, you ensnare many who enjoy some fame and respect depending on one's worldview. A few names that come to mind include Ayers and Dohrn, Chelsea Manning, Mumia Abu-Jamal, OJ Simpson, etc. Each of those is considered a hero to some, and murderer to others.

When hysterics and the worst rhetoric are reserved for a Jewish lawyer (Ben SHAPIRO) who is loud, direct, and otherwise harmless, one begins to recognize that the knives are primarily reserved for those who provide the best opportunity to score political points or for those who present the greatest threat to undermining one's point-of-view.

And that's why I find the moans about "divisiveness" and whatnot to simply be more political theater.

The only strategy I've found to maintain civil discussion is to separate the person from the topic. And I don't do it for the sake of the discussion or the other person, I do it for the sake of my own mental well-being.

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#73

Post by rdtsc »

cakedoggie wrote: post #44
rdtsc wrote: post #24

> We express our disagreements in radio and cable TV rants in ways that are increasingly virulent; And Tweeter. I never signed up, but from the posts and tweets I've seen, I can't imagine a worse platform for sharing ideas or views. I don't see a stream of 140 character insults or smartass comments ever resulting in someone saying "Hmm, that's a great point, maybe I'll rethink my position. I guess I am a dumbass just…

> ever resulting in someone saying "Hmm, that's a great point, maybe I'll rethink my position. I guess I am a dumbass just like you described. Thanks". Because there is no magical system that does this, and expecting it is slightly silly.

HM is pretty good I think, one of the best compared to reddit and others I've seen. Community here does encourage discussion and throwing insults and running away is flagged pretty quickly.

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#74

Post by indubitable »

matt4077 wrote: post #62
indubitable wrote: post #45

Excellent article. However, there is one glaring issue. I completely agree that part of the increasing radicalism among younger Americans is coming from an increasing sensationalistic media that will say anything and do anything for clicks. [0] Unfortunately, there is a reason for that. Another absolutely phenomenal article that was written by a 50 year veteran of the news industry is "The Bad News About the News." […

> [0] - An image that sums up the state of the media today. https://i.imgur.com/PxU76c0h.jpg I see maybe one or two people in that crowd that could be professional photographers or cameramen. It just shows how people in general may prefer whatever sin is implied. And while TV probably gets more attention today, real journalism has always and still does happen mostly at newspapers. The WSJ/NYT/Economist/New Yorker of…

Here [1] is the New York Times on Watergate, just before the 1972 election and shortly before Nixon would genuinely be impeached. It clearly explains the entire situation without speculation or judgement. It provides all information necessary and pertinent to the issue at hand, nothing more - nothing less. Nearly all statements of fact are well sourced and verifiable. There is the most bare minimum usage of anonymous sources. That is journalistic excellence.

Consider their articles today. For instance the first non-opinion article I received when searching specifically for their site and Trump Russia was this [2]. The following 7 statements are the leads to 7 different paragraphs in that story.

- "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team"

- "“They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you’d expect to see in a typical white-collar case,”"

- "“They are setting a tone. It’s important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled,”"

- "The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors "

- "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team"

- "Admirers of Andrew Weissmann, one of the team’s senior prosecutors, describe him as relentless and uncompromising"

- "Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth"

The piece reads like a trailer for a new low brow crime TV show. There's practically 0 valuable information, but it creates drama and starts building up characters to get readers ready for the next exciting entry. If you didn't get it - this prosecutor, he's a serious hardass - wow! Isn't that incredible!? In case you somehow missed it, they also added a picture of him looking like a hardass with the caption: "Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I director, is known to dislike meandering investigations that languish for years." What a cowboy! The sheriff is in town boys!

It's sad that we now find this sort of journalism acceptable. And it's certainly not the reporters' doing it. That article carries no less than 3 names on the byline with 3 contributing reporters as well. It's like blaming developers for a shoddy piece of software. They create it no doubt, but the conditions and direction of which they are operating within are outside of their control so long as they continue to retain their employment there. That Watergate story was phenomenally interesting and informative, but it wouldn't hit the lowest common denominator. For that you need that emotional attachment - the characters, the story, the sensationalism. And so that is what the NYTimes today delivers.

I hope that the NYTimes new paywall push is a resounding success. So long as they are a slave to clicks, their quality will continue to deteriorate.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/01/archives/the-watergate-mys...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russi...

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#75

Post by grzm »

gizmo686 wrote: post #38
grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you see as a good way forward for HN should be if the goal is to have substantial, constructive discussion. Or at minimum, civil discussion. The low quality, incendiary comments degrade discussion and can deter those who would otherwise engage in quality discussion. Edit to add: What's motivating me continuing this discussion is that I feel like you're pushing back on en…

First, big shoutout to dang and team for culling the worst of the comments and maintaining a culture of relatively thoughtful comments. Practically speaking, effective moderation is the only way forward I see As an empirical matter, I would note that most threads (both here and on simmilar sites, such as reddit) seem to follow a predictable life-cycle. An initial wave of low quality posts gets down voted and gives wa…

Thanks for taking the time to respond and detailing your take on my initial comment. Commenting as I did early in the thread was deliberate because of what I've observed in threads. I agree with your take that thoughtful comments tend to come later and can rise to the top. Another behavior I've observed is that an early hot comment can stick at the top, acting as a defacto root and coloring the resulting discussion.

I also think that one of the reasons for low-quality comments is due to people reacting reflexively and emotionally rather than reflectively and thoughtfully, and the intent of my comment is to remind people to take a beat before commenting. It's not motivated by the idea that the commenters are "bad" in some way, or to insult them. I get caught up often as well: I've certainly written posts that I then decide not to submit, or delete soon after submitting. As mentioned above, it takes effort to do this, but I think that many people do want to comment well and constructively, and that for many a reminder is useful.

One of my goals here is to minimize the initial period of low-quality comments and hopefully quiet the more heated subthreads. My comment wasn't a response to the comments that were already there: I hoped to get in early enough that those early commenters might see my comment and reflect a bit before posting something thoughtless and incendiary. I understand that this isn't going to stop all low-effort/low-quality/less-thoughtful comments. If we can shift the default towards more reflection, I think this can have a net positive effect on discussion quality overall, as well as perhaps encourage people to refrain from responding to the less-thoughtful comments, or responding in a way that can guide the discussion back on track. I know this isn't a novel idea, and it might be fruitless.

(As an aside, I had read this particular op-ed before it had been submitted to HN. I think it has some interesting points, and some that I disagree with, which is fine, and could be improved, but it is one worth discussing. I thought about submitting it, but had a pretty good idea of how the discussion would go on HN and decided not to.)

I think my thinking is consistent with how you understand threads like this work. Would you agree? Perhaps one difference between your position and mine is whether or not we can do anything to improve the sutation. Like you, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the work 'dang and 'sctb have done in moderating HN. Whatever quality has been maintained here is in part due to their efforts and those in the community who respect the place HN is. One point I do disagree on is the utility of low-quality comments. I'm glad you can see some positive effect from them. I'm a bit chagrined that you felt my initial comment was of that variety, but admit that it might have been better. The few times I've attempted this type of comment before have been longer, and I can see how "It would be really amazing if" can be read uncharitably. It reiterates to me the importance of the effort of all participants in communication.

You mention in another comment "This thread would seem to be a counter-example." Do you think our discussion may have played a role in that? It's impossible to ascertain this definitively, of course, and I chose the word "may" deliberately. Perhaps a better posing of this question is do you think discussions of the kind we're having could play such role? If you think it's possible, what is a better way to craft such a comment?

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#76

Post by matt4077 »

indubitable wrote: post #74
matt4077 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [0] - An image that sums up the state of the media today. https://i.imgur.com/PxU76c0h.jpg I see maybe one or two people in that crowd that could be professional photographers or cameramen. It just shows how people in general may prefer whatever sin is implied. And while TV probably gets more attention today, real journalism has always and still does happen mostly at newspapers. The WSJ/NYT/Economist/New Yorker of…

Here [1] is the New York Times on Watergate, just before the 1972 election and shortly before Nixon would genuinely be impeached. It clearly explains the entire situation without speculation or judgement. It provides all information necessary and pertinent to the issue at hand, nothing more - nothing less. Nearly all statements of fact are well sourced and verifiable. There is the most bare minimum usage of anonymous…

This seems to just be examples of two different styles. I can't help but notice that the Watergate article would probably get ripped to shreds by today's critics on the internet: it makes judicious use of unnamed sources, it includes a lot of hearsay and speculation, and even the title ("Mystery") would today be construed to be a partisan attack.

Here's a different story on Mueller from todays NYT, which I believe is much closer in style to the Watergate article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/politics/mueller-russi...

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#77

Post by matt4077 »

mercer wrote: post #67
matt4077 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the competing argument that engaging in debate can suggest legitimacy for a belief that it doesn't deserve. If, for example, scientists started arguing with flat-earthers, publishing op-eds "The World is rather round" etc., the flat earth conspiracy theory would stand to gain from it. Part of that is the unfortunate effect that for a certain demographic, anything said by what they perceive to be the "establis…

That's a very interesting argument, and I do agree that the efficacy of shaming is often underestimated. The problem I see is that the efficacy of shaming or engaging depends entirely on context. For example, I think shaming racists on a societal level can be quite effective, if not necessary. Because I do believe much of our current 'liberal' society is a thin veneer over essentially the same kinds of people that ha…

I do agree that there are limits to shaming as tactic. I think society is actually quite good at, for example, being more lenient with younger people to afford them second chances (unlike the criminal justice system).

I also think it's a tactic that stops working once a movement has grown to a certain critical mass: the thread of social boycott dissolves when they can easily fulfil their social needs within a community of like-minded extremists.

The last point connects neatly with the common theme around echo chambers, just from a somewhat different direction.

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#78

Post by thisrod »

It's worth knowing the context to this. The author was invited to present a prize in memory of Mark Colvin, but the Colvin family took offence to the arrogantly foolish things he has said about the greenhouse effect. There's an element of knowing when to stop digging here.

Socrates quarrels with Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and Rousseau quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein quarrels with himself.

If only Newton and Boltzmann made the reading list.

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#79

Post by Turing_Machine »

matt4077 wrote: post #28
Turing_Machine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karl Marx's ideas have been responsible for the deaths of about 100 million people (and counting), yet they still seem to be granted plenty of airtime at our universities.

Marx wrote books, and he died in 1883. The split between Marxists/Trotskyists/Stalinists is well-documented, and reading Das Kapital, you'll see it takes as much of a twisted mind to go from his ideas to Stalin as it takes to get from the bible to the Westboro Baptist Church. Kissinger was an active politician, and he's criticised not so much for his ideas as his actions. I seem to remember that quite a few people du…

> The obvious example is that it's just as common to read Hitler's book and speeches as it is to read Marx when studying history.

I'm sorry, that is not "obvious" at all. It's trivial to name dozens of academics who are self-admitted Marxists, and who give Marxist ideas fulsome praise in the classroom. They outnumber self-admitted Nazi academics by thousands to one, at a minimum (I can't think of even one example of the latter, off-hand, but I suppose there might be one or two out there).

Re: The Dying Art of Disagreement

#80

Post by indubitable »

matt4077 wrote: post #76
indubitable wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here [1] is the New York Times on Watergate, just before the 1972 election and shortly before Nixon would genuinely be impeached. It clearly explains the entire situation without speculation or judgement. It provides all information necessary and pertinent to the issue at hand, nothing more - nothing less. Nearly all statements of fact are well sourced and verifiable. There is the most bare minimum usage of anonymous…

This seems to just be examples of two different styles. I can't help but notice that the Watergate article would probably get ripped to shreds by today's critics on the internet: it makes judicious use of unnamed sources, it includes a lot of hearsay and speculation, and even the title ("Mystery") would today be construed to be a partisan attack. Here's a different story on Mueller from todays NYT, which I believe is…

Look at what the article is doing. Let me ask you a few questions that would seem relevant to the bill itself:

- How many members are on the senate judiciary committee? How many have stated they would vote for the 1st bill? How many have stated they would vote for the second bill?

- How often do bills that leave committee become law?

- Why, specifically, are the lawmakers sponsoring the bills uncertain if their legislation would end up on the senate floor?

- Why do the senators feel that these are bills that Trump would not veto (or do they feel they can achieve a veto overriding supermajority)?

- What, specifically, are the constitutional issues these bills face?

Very basic questions I think that all seem like they'd provide critical insight to what's going on. Most are completely ignored, or answered in the most unbelievably lazy ways possible. For instance the final paragraph actually mentions a concern that these bills could simply be vetoed by the president. The final sentence: "Other legal scholars disagreed." So is the NYTimes suggesting that legal scholars are saying Trump can't veto these bills? That's certainly what they seem to be implying. That is completely incorrect and certainly deserves vastly more than a 4 word sentence.

The rest of the article back to the theme of character building, drama, and salaciousness. I may have no clue what's going on, but did you know that some politician on the council just said 'They have concern about the president's respect for the law'? That quote is also a misleading nonsequitor. The entire point of this is that it would be completely lawful and legal for Trump to dismiss the investigator. The committee's goal seems to be to try to change the law to prevent this. I would add that quote was not only within the article itself, but also attached to an image as well. Again, character building and drama.

Post reply on HN