4 ms·

I dislike the notion that discourse needs to be respectful at all times. Discourse shouldn't be baselessly disrespectful, sure. But the robotic, tsk tsk, sham

I dislike the notion that discourse needs to be respectful at all times. Discourse shouldn't be baselessly disrespectful, sure. But the robotic, tsk tsk, shaming attitude that gets thrown around on forums whenever someone expresses any negative emotion gets old too. In any case, complaining about having to pay capital gains tax on gains OVER $500k really is the ultimate first world, privileged problem.

chaostheory 9y ago
Maybe if the comment added to the conversation somehow it'd be more tolerable. However, all the comment does is insult someone without adding anything interesting. It's a waste of space and time for everyone else reading it. It doesn't belong in HN.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Expressing incredulity and frustration at the obtuseness of someone's complaint doesn't seem especially useless to me. Why is expressing emotional reactions pointless, in your mind? Doing so gives everyone more information about the reactions they might expect to their concerns... it enforces social norms, etc.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    > Why is expressing emotional reactions pointless, in your mind? Doing so gives everyone more information about the reactions they might expect to their concerns The problem is that the comment provides nothing else. You can do the same thing in a more civil and constructive way. Just look at your comments. You are providing logic and rationale for your argument. I don't agree with you, but you're adding to the discussion. Now compare that to "I'm sick of you people. Stop whining about other people's comments you big baby". Someone can correct me, but that doesn't belong here and that rule has been around since the beginning of HN. It's been written and clear along with the reasons why. It's the way things have been done here. If someone doesn't like it, they can post on reddit instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
    - Danihan 9y ago
      I don't disagree that the comment is probably against the rules. I just believe the rules tend to stifle people from expressing how they truly feel about topics, and are therefore information limiting and generally a net loss. It's a fine line. Some people's feelings are toxic all the time and wrong-headed and truly add nothing of value. Other people, when they have a negative emotional reaction there is probably a lot of accumulated wisdom behind it and you should really listen instead of censoring or rambling on about civility. Very subjective though. Also, in my opinion, the constant suppression of any negative speech is exactly what gets someone like Trump elected. "Finally, someone on TV is saying what I FEEL and no one can stop him!"
      - chaostheory 9y ago
        To stay on point, my argument is that the rules are clear and they make sense. There are emotional comments on HN that are fine. However they are different. The particular comment we're referring is toxic and adds nothing to the actual discussion; there's no wisdom to calling someone a 'baby'. The only thing it promotes is a flame war since it personally insults someone. It shuts down discussion because it needlessly attempts to piss off someone. There were plenty of other comments that were both critical, insightful, and civil.
grzm 9y ago
I think you have a point. It depends on context. Within the context of HN, you at least have to be civil. Civility and respect are not exactly equivalent, but they're quite close.
davidw 9y ago
It's not about a "negative emotion", it's about saying something that you probably wouldn't say to someone's face. If I were talking to lisper over a beer, I'd probably smile and say that that problem is one that 99% of the world's population would love to have, or something to that effect. Or maybe without the smile and straight to the point "complaining about profits so high that you're getting taxed on them when there are people who are homeless is not a great look". OTOH, I don't think he's really complaining, just pointing out that the system is pretty screwy even for someone who is in no uncertain terms doing pretty well.
darawk 9y ago
> In any case, complaining about having to pay capital gains tax on gains OVER $500k really is the ultimate first world, privileged problem. Almost every complaint levied on this forum is a first world problem. Complaining about the ergonomics of a programming language is a first world problem. And secondly, he wasn't complaining, he was describing the economics of his choices. What is infinitely more toxic than 'complaining' about first world problems, is people jumping on explanations like the above as 'complaints' that need to be silenced.
- Danihan 9y ago
  >What is infinitely more toxic than 'complaining' about first world problems That's just like, your opinion man. >Complaining about the ergonomics Look, complaining about work is a typical first world problem, sure. And of course we're all lucky to do the work we do and not live in [wherever.] Complaining about 20% taxes on $200k of a ~$700k windfall is truly more like a .00001% issue and is pretty obtuse by any measure. You wouldn't raise an eyebrow, or have any negative reaction to someone making $400k / year bitterly complaining that they have to pay taxes on it? I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was obnoxious. >he was describing the economics of his choices. Sort of, in a fairly facile and borderline deceptive manner.
  - darawk 9y ago
    > You wouldn't raise an eyebrow, or have any negative reaction to someone making $400k / year bitterly complaining that they have to pay taxes on it? I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was obnoxious. Where are these bitter complaints? He commented to say that rising housing prices weren't good for him. He explained why. That isn't a complaint. He didn't say "I deserve this money from my rising house price!". He didn't say "the world is so unfair to me". He just explained why this thing that people thought would be helpful to someone like him, was in fact, not helpful. > Sort of, in a fairly facile and borderline deceptive manner. What was facile or deceptive about what he said? He's absolutely correct.
    - Danihan 9y ago
el_benhameen 9y ago
I agree that we don't need to be robotically respectful. If someone's a real asshole, I have no qualms with responding in kind, even if doing so is debatably effective. I wrote what I wrote because I thought that ttul's comment was baselessly disrespectful. The parent wasn't being a jerk, but ttul responded with out of place ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the argument.

chaostheory 9y ago

Maybe if the comment added to the conversation somehow it'd be more tolerable. However, all the comment does is insult someone without adding anything interesting. It's a waste of space and time for everyone else reading it. It doesn't belong in HN.

Danihan 9y ago
Expressing incredulity and frustration at the obtuseness of someone's complaint doesn't seem especially useless to me. Why is expressing emotional reactions pointless, in your mind? Doing so gives everyone more information about the reactions they might expect to their concerns... it enforces social norms, etc.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  > Why is expressing emotional reactions pointless, in your mind? Doing so gives everyone more information about the reactions they might expect to their concerns The problem is that the comment provides nothing else. You can do the same thing in a more civil and constructive way. Just look at your comments. You are providing logic and rationale for your argument. I don't agree with you, but you're adding to the discussion. Now compare that to "I'm sick of you people. Stop whining about other people's comments you big baby". Someone can correct me, but that doesn't belong here and that rule has been around since the beginning of HN. It's been written and clear along with the reasons why. It's the way things have been done here. If someone doesn't like it, they can post on reddit instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
  - Danihan 9y ago
    I don't disagree that the comment is probably against the rules. I just believe the rules tend to stifle people from expressing how they truly feel about topics, and are therefore information limiting and generally a net loss. It's a fine line. Some people's feelings are toxic all the time and wrong-headed and truly add nothing of value. Other people, when they have a negative emotional reaction there is probably a lot of accumulated wisdom behind it and you should really listen instead of censoring or rambling on about civility. Very subjective though. Also, in my opinion, the constant suppression of any negative speech is exactly what gets someone like Trump elected. "Finally, someone on TV is saying what I FEEL and no one can stop him!"
    - chaostheory 9y ago
      To stay on point, my argument is that the rules are clear and they make sense. There are emotional comments on HN that are fine. However they are different. The particular comment we're referring is toxic and adds nothing to the actual discussion; there's no wisdom to calling someone a 'baby'. The only thing it promotes is a flame war since it personally insults someone. It shuts down discussion because it needlessly attempts to piss off someone. There were plenty of other comments that were both critical, insightful, and civil.

grzm 9y ago

I think you have a point. It depends on context. Within the context of HN, you at least have to be civil. Civility and respect are not exactly equivalent, but they're quite close.

davidw 9y ago

It's not about a "negative emotion", it's about saying something that you probably wouldn't say to someone's face. If I were talking to lisper over a beer, I'd probably smile and say that that problem is one that 99% of the world's population would love to have, or something to that effect. Or maybe without the smile and straight to the point "complaining about profits so high that you're getting taxed on them when there are people who are homeless is not a great look". OTOH, I don't think he's really complaining, just pointing out that the system is pretty screwy even for someone who is in no uncertain terms doing pretty well.

darawk 9y ago

> In any case, complaining about having to pay capital gains tax on gains OVER $500k really is the ultimate first world, privileged problem. Almost every complaint levied on this forum is a first world problem. Complaining about the ergonomics of a programming language is a first world problem. And secondly, he wasn't complaining, he was describing the economics of his choices. What is infinitely more toxic than 'complaining' about first world problems, is people jumping on explanations like the above as 'complaints' that need to be silenced.

Danihan 9y ago
>What is infinitely more toxic than 'complaining' about first world problems That's just like, your opinion man. >Complaining about the ergonomics Look, complaining about work is a typical first world problem, sure. And of course we're all lucky to do the work we do and not live in [wherever.] Complaining about 20% taxes on $200k of a ~$700k windfall is truly more like a .00001% issue and is pretty obtuse by any measure. You wouldn't raise an eyebrow, or have any negative reaction to someone making $400k / year bitterly complaining that they have to pay taxes on it? I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was obnoxious. >he was describing the economics of his choices. Sort of, in a fairly facile and borderline deceptive manner.
- darawk 9y ago
  > You wouldn't raise an eyebrow, or have any negative reaction to someone making $400k / year bitterly complaining that they have to pay taxes on it? I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was obnoxious. Where are these bitter complaints? He commented to say that rising housing prices weren't good for him. He explained why. That isn't a complaint. He didn't say "I deserve this money from my rising house price!". He didn't say "the world is so unfair to me". He just explained why this thing that people thought would be helpful to someone like him, was in fact, not helpful. > Sort of, in a fairly facile and borderline deceptive manner. What was facile or deceptive about what he said? He's absolutely correct.
  - Danihan 9y ago

el_benhameen 9y ago

I agree that we don't need to be robotically respectful. If someone's a real asshole, I have no qualms with responding in kind, even if doing so is debatably effective. I wrote what I wrote because I thought that ttul's comment was baselessly disrespectful. The parent wasn't being a jerk, but ttul responded with out of place ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the argument.