5 ms·

> Not a fan of Twitter, but Aside, why do people write this kind of thing? What does it clarify? It's not like you're taking a controversial stance here. In f

> Not a fan of Twitter, but Aside, why do people write this kind of thing? What does it clarify? It's not like you're taking a controversial stance here. In fact, you're taking the same one as the article and the rest of our echo chamber. I don't unconditionally hate Twitter either, but I don't try to get a cookie for it.

stagbeetle 10y ago
I believe it's in the name of full disclosure. Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.
- always_good 10y ago
  Why not just add it to every post? > Disclosure: I usually hold the opposite viewpoint > of the one that I just expressed. Does it make all of your opinions hold more weight? Or is it, in fact, meaningless?
  - supernovae 10y ago
    meaningless and contrived if you ask me
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Maybe because 'opposite' is not an accurate statement, when the issue isn't a simple dichotomy. In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Normally (dis)liking an entity is not "the opposite viewpoint of the one I just expressed". That's reductionist BS. It would only be meaningless to put similar language on every post because you would presumably be lying. Is the distinction there not obvious?
komali2 10y ago
Guaranteed way to generate more upvotes for their comments on HN and Reddit. It's even more effective on HN. I mean, haven't you noticed people do it IRL? "Look none of us like ____, but we gotta admit, ___! Amirite? Amirite?" EDIT: Basically, what stagbeetle said, but you just say it all the time whether or not it's true.
mvpu 10y ago
Such lines are usually followed by the opposite view.. Not a fan of X, but <something good about X> Don't mean to be rude but <something actually rude> I'm not saying X is right but <something right about X> This is internal noise that the writer spills out. There's no need to write these things. Here's the kicker: I think it will rain tomorrow. The I think is unnecessary, you're saying it because you're thinking.
- foota 10y ago
  I think it's because the person is emphasizing that they view something in a positive light in spite of a generally negative opinion of the entity doing the thing. I say "I think" to emphasise that something is my opinion in contrast to a fact read somewhere.
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  Nah, sorry. Too much black-and-white thinking. The "I think" is not unnecessary in general. There are definitely situations where it makes clear on what grounds a conclusion is drawn. Just like the original statement: "Not a fan of twitter, but..." might be seen as a side-note and unimportant to the main point, but it certainly adds information.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  "I think" is a modifier on certainty the way it's normally used, not merely redundant information (as the literal reading suggests). It is generally used when the person isn't certain. Similarly, all of the phrases you mentiom carry information about how the comment should be interpreted. Not a fan of X: I'm generally biased against X, so my opinion they did well here carries extra inferential weight. Don't mean to be rude: I don't know how to say this politely and request that you "iron man" the question or statement. There are arguments about if you truly need to say such things, but I'm generally on the side that rudeness is better than censorship. I'm not claiming X is right: I explicitly disclaim a typical inference one would draw from making an argument that something about X is correct. What you see as "noise" are inclusions of internal probabilistic weights, parse requests, other meta-comments, etc.
- ahallock 10y ago

stagbeetle 10y ago

I believe it's in the name of full disclosure. Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.

always_good 10y ago
Why not just add it to every post? > Disclosure: I usually hold the opposite viewpoint > of the one that I just expressed. Does it make all of your opinions hold more weight? Or is it, in fact, meaningless?
- supernovae 10y ago
  meaningless and contrived if you ask me
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Maybe because 'opposite' is not an accurate statement, when the issue isn't a simple dichotomy. In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Normally (dis)liking an entity is not "the opposite viewpoint of the one I just expressed". That's reductionist BS. It would only be meaningless to put similar language on every post because you would presumably be lying. Is the distinction there not obvious?

komali2 10y ago

Guaranteed way to generate more upvotes for their comments on HN and Reddit. It's even more effective on HN. I mean, haven't you noticed people do it IRL? "Look none of us like ____, but we gotta admit, ___! Amirite? Amirite?" EDIT: Basically, what stagbeetle said, but you just say it all the time whether or not it's true.

mvpu 10y ago

Such lines are usually followed by the opposite view.. Not a fan of X, but <something good about X> Don't mean to be rude but <something actually rude> I'm not saying X is right but <something right about X> This is internal noise that the writer spills out. There's no need to write these things. Here's the kicker: I think it will rain tomorrow. The I think is unnecessary, you're saying it because you're thinking.

foota 10y ago
I think it's because the person is emphasizing that they view something in a positive light in spite of a generally negative opinion of the entity doing the thing. I say "I think" to emphasise that something is my opinion in contrast to a fact read somewhere.
jstimpfle 10y ago
Nah, sorry. Too much black-and-white thinking. The "I think" is not unnecessary in general. There are definitely situations where it makes clear on what grounds a conclusion is drawn. Just like the original statement: "Not a fan of twitter, but..." might be seen as a side-note and unimportant to the main point, but it certainly adds information.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
"I think" is a modifier on certainty the way it's normally used, not merely redundant information (as the literal reading suggests). It is generally used when the person isn't certain. Similarly, all of the phrases you mentiom carry information about how the comment should be interpreted. Not a fan of X: I'm generally biased against X, so my opinion they did well here carries extra inferential weight. Don't mean to be rude: I don't know how to say this politely and request that you "iron man" the question or statement. There are arguments about if you truly need to say such things, but I'm generally on the side that rudeness is better than censorship. I'm not claiming X is right: I explicitly disclaim a typical inference one would draw from making an argument that something about X is correct. What you see as "noise" are inclusions of internal probabilistic weights, parse requests, other meta-comments, etc.
ahallock 10y ago