3 ms·

But it doesn't add any depth to the discussion. I'm sure everyone has specific positions on how the article makes them feel. However, HN is about getting to kno

But it doesn't add any depth to the discussion. I'm sure everyone has specific positions on how the article makes them feel. However, HN is about getting to know different standpoints which have a certain amount of profundity to it. Just saying: "I like this", or "I used to like this", doesn't give any substance.

mythrwy 9y ago
As I understand the statement's intent, it has layers of depth and is concisely profound. It speaks directly to (IMOP) the root of the problem the article talks about.
- edejong 9y ago
  Well, I can think of a couple of reasons why the OP thought it is stupid now: - He understands the article is preaching to the choir. - He thinks the article does not take into account the total flow of capital. His better understanding of economics makes him understand this now. - The article does not cite any sources. - It (apparently) is a common theme that older plebians tend to vote more conservative. Perhaps he is referring to his changing political position. - Without dialogue, these articles are fundamentally empty. They do not help different actors come together. - The article is using various framing devices to make it appealing to a certain audience. The OP currently feels exalted from this pleading to the hoi polloi. - Due to the effects of filter bubbles and targeted psy-profiling, the OP has unknowingly narrowed his vision, causing him to label the article stupid. Which one is it? I'd like to know because I might be missing the point here. So, my point is: I can create many layers of depth by just using my imagination. But that doesn't add anything to the discussion. I could say I'm a post-post-modernist or a holistic a-structuralist, which might capture some depth and raise some questions, but it does not allow for any kind of true dialogue.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    Young OP thinking different than old OP is an important contextual modifier that excludes most of those options as reasonable though. But everything isn't an argument (er, I mean "dialog") so feel free to be as right as you wish to be. Allowing people to express themselves and taking the time to consider the meaning behind the expression is both polite and can be quite enlightening (as well as entertaining). If you are constantly arguing or saying things like "source?" for a personal point of view (perhaps because you differ in viewpoint or feel a position you hold is being attacked) you miss both of these benefits. When I was young I thought razor whit logic and proving verbal correctness somehow trumped experiential reality. But now I am old I think differently.

mythrwy 9y ago

As I understand the statement's intent, it has layers of depth and is concisely profound. It speaks directly to (IMOP) the root of the problem the article talks about.

edejong 9y ago
Well, I can think of a couple of reasons why the OP thought it is stupid now: - He understands the article is preaching to the choir. - He thinks the article does not take into account the total flow of capital. His better understanding of economics makes him understand this now. - The article does not cite any sources. - It (apparently) is a common theme that older plebians tend to vote more conservative. Perhaps he is referring to his changing political position. - Without dialogue, these articles are fundamentally empty. They do not help different actors come together. - The article is using various framing devices to make it appealing to a certain audience. The OP currently feels exalted from this pleading to the hoi polloi. - Due to the effects of filter bubbles and targeted psy-profiling, the OP has unknowingly narrowed his vision, causing him to label the article stupid. Which one is it? I'd like to know because I might be missing the point here. So, my point is: I can create many layers of depth by just using my imagination. But that doesn't add anything to the discussion. I could say I'm a post-post-modernist or a holistic a-structuralist, which might capture some depth and raise some questions, but it does not allow for any kind of true dialogue.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Young OP thinking different than old OP is an important contextual modifier that excludes most of those options as reasonable though. But everything isn't an argument (er, I mean "dialog") so feel free to be as right as you wish to be. Allowing people to express themselves and taking the time to consider the meaning behind the expression is both polite and can be quite enlightening (as well as entertaining). If you are constantly arguing or saying things like "source?" for a personal point of view (perhaps because you differ in viewpoint or feel a position you hold is being attacked) you miss both of these benefits. When I was young I thought razor whit logic and proving verbal correctness somehow trumped experiential reality. But now I am old I think differently.