4 ms·
Dang, I'm really confused here. As Houshalter points out, he was deliberately making an argument based on social unacceptability of my beliefs. Searching for th
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
Dang, I'm really confused here. As Houshalter points out, he was deliberately making an argument based on social unacceptability of my beliefs. Searching for the phrase on hn.algolia.com, I've used the term 5 times on HN ever, never in the manner you imply.
I'm also confused about my use of the term "mood affiliation". Searching my use of the term, most of the time I use it to refer to an external source with a data table/graph that supports a claim I make, but a tone which contradicts mine. For example, I might cite Piketty's book which claims the best way to grow the economy is to funnel money to the rich (this follows directly from his claims that rich people have higher r than non-rich people). What's the dang-approved way to point this out?
In the rare occasion I use it to refer to a comment on HN, I'm usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this?
http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Let me know, I'll do exactly as you ask.
- dang 10y ago> usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this? That seems like a good way to ask it right there. Possibly I misread you in this case (possibly even in every case!) but my sense is frequently that you are not asking someone a question so much as implying that they have no serious concern, only emotional baggage that they're irrationally unwilling to let go of. That's a form of derision, and it doesn't lead to better arguments. But if I've gotten you completely wrong, I'd be happy to see it and apologize.