3 ms·

How is a post claiming residents deserve special privileges not ideological, but one claiming they don't is?

dang 10y ago
It's taking the thread into ideological generalities that I object to. Playing the monopoly-of-violence card is just upping the ideological ante in a way that can only polarize the argument, at the same time taking the discussion to so abstract a level that there is little of substance left to say. That combination of escalation and generality is one of the worst thing you can do in discussions like this; it's a kind of trolling whether you mean it to be or not. Similarly for taking a trope like "the strong exploiting the weak" and applying it to tourists (of all people) in a way that's guaranteed to tick off the readers who go in for that kind of phrase. That's basically just a stunt, and it's one that seems designed to offend. Why do you go out of your way to make the people you disagree with uncomfortable? Again, that's trolling whether you intend it to be or not. (I used to do this myself without realizing it. It took me a long time to see that.) The kind of discussion we want here is people trying respectfully to figure out the truth together. Your comments frequently strike me as conforming to the letter of that idea while violating its spirit—almost as if you'd discovered a loophole in the rules of discourse and were gleefully exploiting it. That's not as bad as violating the letter outright, which is what most people do who use HN as an ideological battlefield. But it's still dismaying, and it still leaves one with the feeling of being trolled. As, for that matter, do your naive-sounding "how is" questions that always seem to leave the real problem unmentioned.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm attempting to distinguish between a normative claim (residents should be treated the same as tourists) and a similar positive claim (residents will be treated the same as tourists). People often conflate such claims so I wanted to preemptively disambiguate. (I do this often, e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669705 ) Am I correct in understanding that you are detaching/penalizing my post because while it's positive claims are correct, and within the letter of the law, you think folks who disagree with me might have negative emotional reactions and perhaps behave badly? That's quite the hecklers veto you are building there.
  - dang 10y ago
    No.

dang 10y ago

It's taking the thread into ideological generalities that I object to. Playing the monopoly-of-violence card is just upping the ideological ante in a way that can only polarize the argument, at the same time taking the discussion to so abstract a level that there is little of substance left to say. That combination of escalation and generality is one of the worst thing you can do in discussions like this; it's a kind of trolling whether you mean it to be or not. Similarly for taking a trope like "the strong exploiting the weak" and applying it to tourists (of all people) in a way that's guaranteed to tick off the readers who go in for that kind of phrase. That's basically just a stunt, and it's one that seems designed to offend. Why do you go out of your way to make the people you disagree with uncomfortable? Again, that's trolling whether you intend it to be or not. (I used to do this myself without realizing it. It took me a long time to see that.) The kind of discussion we want here is people trying respectfully to figure out the truth together. Your comments frequently strike me as conforming to the letter of that idea while violating its spirit—almost as if you'd discovered a loophole in the rules of discourse and were gleefully exploiting it. That's not as bad as violating the letter outright, which is what most people do who use HN as an ideological battlefield. But it's still dismaying, and it still leaves one with the feeling of being trolled. As, for that matter, do your naive-sounding "how is" questions that always seem to leave the real problem unmentioned.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm attempting to distinguish between a normative claim (residents should be treated the same as tourists) and a similar positive claim (residents will be treated the same as tourists). People often conflate such claims so I wanted to preemptively disambiguate. (I do this often, e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669705 ) Am I correct in understanding that you are detaching/penalizing my post because while it's positive claims are correct, and within the letter of the law, you think folks who disagree with me might have negative emotional reactions and perhaps behave badly? That's quite the hecklers veto you are building there.
- dang 10y ago
  No.