3 ms·

Meta (since it's too late to edit my original reply): The sole fact that you commented compelled me to clarify my position and admit that I may indeed have mis

Meta (since it's too late to edit my original reply): The sole fact that you commented compelled me to clarify my position and admit that I may indeed have misunderstood the original poster. That is why I am so insistent on actual discussion. My original reaction was, "these people aren't using their words to address mine? Clearly they can't even use their words, so they must be wrong and I must be right." Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate.

klodolph 10y ago
It's a lazy Sunday, I'll reply to both here. Downvotes are essential. Replying to a poor-quality comment wastes time and effort, downvoting means that other people won't read it. > Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate. Consider that the reaction may not be rational in other cases. The appeal here is basically an emotionally-founded ultimatum, "Reply to me or else I won't change my opinion." That's how I interpreted it. A core problem with earnest debate online is that comments are so often misinterpreted. Maybe I just misinterpreted yours! You can write defensively, but defensive writing is less clear. My writing on Stack Overflow, Hacker News, etc. is very defensive and it suffers for it, but I deal with fewer comments that misinterpret things. You can also interpret comments liberally. Consider, "You can't find women unless you have a job." Literally it means that unemployed men are incapable of getting girlfriends or wives. This is obviously false, so there's no point in replying to the literal interpretation here. > I disagree with this fundamentally - my assertion is that the most reliable and broadly applicable way of attracting women is to be charismatic, and that charisma is a trainable skill. Here are the problems I see with this series of comments: The original comment did not make this claim, no matter how generously I read it. At best, that claim is a presupposition of the original comment. The difference betwen presuppositions and claims is critical for good discussion. It is cumbersome to reply to a statement when you disagree with a presupposition, which is why unjustified presuppositions are considered a type of informal fallacy. The second problem is that the claim is not germane. The comment by jokoon claims that it is much more difficult for unemployed men to get a girlfriend, and saying that charisma is more important than employment status is tangential at best. The third problem is that the reply to jokoon's comment is poor quality. The first four sentences seem like they were copied from the section headings of a random dating advice article. The advice is so obvious that the comment seems to carry the implication that jokoon must be a true idiot in order to need this advice.

klodolph 10y ago

It's a lazy Sunday, I'll reply to both here. Downvotes are essential. Replying to a poor-quality comment wastes time and effort, downvoting means that other people won't read it. > Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate. Consider that the reaction may not be rational in other cases. The appeal here is basically an emotionally-founded ultimatum, "Reply to me or else I won't change my opinion." That's how I interpreted it. A core problem with earnest debate online is that comments are so often misinterpreted. Maybe I just misinterpreted yours! You can write defensively, but defensive writing is less clear. My writing on Stack Overflow, Hacker News, etc. is very defensive and it suffers for it, but I deal with fewer comments that misinterpret things. You can also interpret comments liberally. Consider, "You can't find women unless you have a job." Literally it means that unemployed men are incapable of getting girlfriends or wives. This is obviously false, so there's no point in replying to the literal interpretation here. > I disagree with this fundamentally - my assertion is that the most reliable and broadly applicable way of attracting women is to be charismatic, and that charisma is a trainable skill. Here are the problems I see with this series of comments: The original comment did not make this claim, no matter how generously I read it. At best, that claim is a presupposition of the original comment. The difference betwen presuppositions and claims is critical for good discussion. It is cumbersome to reply to a statement when you disagree with a presupposition, which is why unjustified presuppositions are considered a type of informal fallacy. The second problem is that the claim is not germane. The comment by jokoon claims that it is much more difficult for unemployed men to get a girlfriend, and saying that charisma is more important than employment status is tangential at best. The third problem is that the reply to jokoon's comment is poor quality. The first four sentences seem like they were copied from the section headings of a random dating advice article. The advice is so obvious that the comment seems to carry the implication that jokoon must be a true idiot in order to need this advice.