3 ms·

(I’m only responding because Dan getting involved in the conversation is equivalent to the bouncer at the bar putting his hand on your shoulder). My target was

(I’m only responding because Dan getting involved in the conversation is equivalent to the bouncer at the bar putting his hand on your shoulder). My target was inappropriate. The snark should have been directed at the author of the submarine PR advertisement, not the marketing executive. I believe articles like this, which are barely more than corporate press releases, are more damaging to the community than the loose language I employed. The real problem with this piece is that it doesn’t say anything interesting about the successful CSR marketing campaign, and instead positions it as: 1) Chase REALLY listens to its customers! Isn’t that great? Especially you millennials! 2) Look at these CRAZY deals! What a bargain! You’re nuts not to get in on this! This piece is thus uninteresting, and deserves the snark. The exec mentioned within it does not. (At least not yet — let’s see what happens with churn over the next 5 years).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sctb 9y ago
> Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 9y ago
Since Scott already replied, now you've got two bouncers. The trouble with what you've said here is that even if you're right about the article, it's easy to make your points without doing damage to HN. It simply takes a will to do it and a willingness to wait a little, to make it past the reflexive phase where the snark enzymes kick in. That aside, there's another problem with your argument: if it's right, it's too right, because the same observation applies to nearly all media pieces. This sucks, but it is a cost of doing business on the internet (probably literally). If we focus on these annoyances, we only deprive ourselves of curious discussion. I'd say the guideline to apply here is the following one, translated to the article level: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. In other words, please respond to the most interesting things in an article, not less interesting things that are easier to criticize. If there are no interesting things, that's different, but then you should flag the submission. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sctb 9y ago

> Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 9y ago

Since Scott already replied, now you've got two bouncers. The trouble with what you've said here is that even if you're right about the article, it's easy to make your points without doing damage to HN. It simply takes a will to do it and a willingness to wait a little, to make it past the reflexive phase where the snark enzymes kick in. That aside, there's another problem with your argument: if it's right, it's too right, because the same observation applies to nearly all media pieces. This sucks, but it is a cost of doing business on the internet (probably literally). If we focus on these annoyances, we only deprive ourselves of curious discussion. I'd say the guideline to apply here is the following one, translated to the article level: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. In other words, please respond to the most interesting things in an article, not less interesting things that are easier to criticize. If there are no interesting things, that's different, but then you should flag the submission. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html