3 ms·
That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for
by verylittlemeat 9y ago
That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for scorching the earth to get ahead. You have massive incentive not to casually degrade the existence of your spouse. Your example isn't even a different ballpark it's a different game.
In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with finding the right answer. These arguments are social posturing. It's not about me being right it's about you not being right. Some of the worst argumentative know-it-alls I ever met were only that way almost as a form of preemptive strike. They were terrified that someone might socially dominate them so they had to dominate the other person first.
For that reason I'm deeply skeptical that Damore was trying to have a conversation in good faith. It seems much more likely to me that he saw a social justice culture that claimed to have a monopoly on what is right and that really got on his nerves. I bet Damore would have been an outspoken social justice advocate if his workshop came to him and asked "hey, do you think these gender initiatives are good?" Instead I bet he got something more along the lines of "this is why you think wrong."
- DoreenMichele 9y agoYou and I are not even discussing the same thing. I am talking about discussions about Damore on the internet generally and on HN in specific. Discussion on HN can develop over hours, days, weeks, months even years. Some people here have known each other for years. In most cases, they can just walk away if things get too harried, regroup, rethink, conclude "that phrasing went super bad" and try something else.
- verylittlemeat 9y agoI think your bar for good faith conversation is set unrealistically high. Outside of friends and family most people have no incentive to concede anything in a conversation if they don't want to. Some people don't care at all about burning bridges to "win." For anonymous conversations on the internet this is almost the rule rather than the exception. Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much as you do but it's a race to the bottom. If one person values "being right" they will take your good faith argument and eat you alive in public with no mercy.
- DoreenMichele 9y agoI think my expectations align with HN guidelines and with a fair amount of observable behavior here. Granted, some folks can't be arsed. (shrug)
- verylittlemeat 9y agoI guess you and I are reading a different hacker news then. I can hardly go one thread here that doesn't devolve into petty power jabs for internet points. I don't know how you can read the comments in this Damore thread and not agree that's the case. Of course, that's against the HN guidelines, but it's not exactly hard to follow the letter of the guidelines while breaking the spirit of them.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dang 9y agoIf you notice people doing that you should flag the comments. How to do this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.