3 ms·

It's not about reputation management, it's about an unfortunate effect of democracy: the public is put in the position of making policy, and if the public is mi

It's not about reputation management, it's about an unfortunate effect of democracy: the public is put in the position of making policy, and if the public is misled they might make the wrong policy. On the opposite side of the world, note all the criticism of "FAKE news" and the desire by many people for large corporations collecting data on billions of people to police it. The reason is that a population which doesn't understand reality cannot effectively make decisions about it. I called no one privileged and attempted to silence no one. I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Would a comment expressing sentiment with opposing mood affiliation also be uncivil?

yosamino 10y ago
> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs a parent, because they're not fit to run their own lives. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might end up in that position, that have nothing to do with being unable to handle your affairs.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - yosamino 10y ago
    I think you're going about this a bit too simple and too confrontational. Your original comment started out with a generalizing remark which I felt to be uncivil and I called out out on it. I didn't actually completely disagree with the rest of your comment. Do you understand this ? You raised a perfectly valid point. My only disagreement with you is that you decided it is good etiquette to insult a whole group of people by implying they have the real-world capacity of children. I will repeat it again for you: * I disagree with what I thought was an insulting remark. * I thought the points you made afterwards were valid and intriguing Please do not try to misunderstand me on purpose again.
    - mercer 10y ago
      For what it's worth, I usually upvote yummyfajitas' comments and I find him/her a very valuable part of HN, but in this particular case I downvoted because I think they erred on the side of insulting in their comment. Judging by the gray, others might've felt the same way. In my opinion it distracts from the actual points that were made. That said, it is a decent possible that no insult was intended, so I'd suggest we just move on and discuss the content rather than the tone.
  - dang 10y ago
    FWIW I think yosamino's objection there plainly shows why your comment was wrong and indeed uncivil, and not just a matter of 'tone'. In fact I was going to post much the same thing until I saw that he or she already had. I'm a little surprised that you can't concede a point and instead responded with so weak a distraction.

yosamino 10y ago

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs a parent, because they're not fit to run their own lives. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might end up in that position, that have nothing to do with being unable to handle your affairs.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yosamino 10y ago
  I think you're going about this a bit too simple and too confrontational. Your original comment started out with a generalizing remark which I felt to be uncivil and I called out out on it. I didn't actually completely disagree with the rest of your comment. Do you understand this ? You raised a perfectly valid point. My only disagreement with you is that you decided it is good etiquette to insult a whole group of people by implying they have the real-world capacity of children. I will repeat it again for you: * I disagree with what I thought was an insulting remark. * I thought the points you made afterwards were valid and intriguing Please do not try to misunderstand me on purpose again.
  - mercer 10y ago
    For what it's worth, I usually upvote yummyfajitas' comments and I find him/her a very valuable part of HN, but in this particular case I downvoted because I think they erred on the side of insulting in their comment. Judging by the gray, others might've felt the same way. In my opinion it distracts from the actual points that were made. That said, it is a decent possible that no insult was intended, so I'd suggest we just move on and discuss the content rather than the tone.
- dang 10y ago
  FWIW I think yosamino's objection there plainly shows why your comment was wrong and indeed uncivil, and not just a matter of 'tone'. In fact I was going to post much the same thing until I saw that he or she already had. I'm a little surprised that you can't concede a point and instead responded with so weak a distraction.