4 ms·

Maybe this is too much of a meta question, but why was this downvoted so heavily? As someone with a relevant background, I think it's entirely wrong, but it's

by ben509 9y ago

Maybe this is too much of a meta question, but why was this downvoted so heavily? As someone with a relevant background, I think it's entirely wrong, but it's presented in an entirely respectful manner. Saying something that is very clearly wrong is good because then we can explain why it's wrong. Or am I missing something?

eropple 9y ago
I didn't downvote it (though my incredulous reply has been upvoted pretty heavily), but I'll be frank: I don't think this kind of warm-take review of the pilot's radio manner would be made if it was a man. Being respectful-and-gross is not materially better than being gross, and so I'm not surprised that other people came to the same conclusion and tubed the post.
- hueving 9y ago
  >I don't think this kind of warm-take review of the pilot's radio manner would be made if it was a man. Every aviation incident discussed in /r/aviation is full of armchair analysts and critics. People on the internet like to put out controversial opinions about what people have done to feel relevant. Much like you ended up doing ascribing this to a sexism issue despite it being based on pace of speech.
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    Analysis and speculation (even if uninformed) about how they handled the incident is one thing "Why didn't they reduce speed and take a 25 mile approach instead of 20 mile?".... But criticizing the pilot for being too calm and speaking in slow deliberate sentences? That seems over the edge and sounds more like personal criticism.
hueving 9y ago
Because if you have no relevant experience, you shouldn't be making assertions about 'being too calm' since you have no clue what you're talking about. The commenter then digs in further with irrelevant opinions about why he/she thinks the pilot was too calm. It's like a non-programmer opening up some source code, then leaving a comment that the letter X is used too much because it's not used that much in articles on the NY Times.
mikestew 9y ago
but it's presented in an entirely respectful manner. A "respectful manner" first involves asking oneself, "what are the important aspects of flying an injured plane that I am ignorant of? In light of that, are my criticisms valid?" From where I sit, the original post did none of that. Nope, just "derpy, derp, she did not do it the way I, a person who has probably never flown a plane or handled a radio in an emergency situation, would do it." To put it more bluntly, it came across like someone talking out their arse.
dahart 9y ago
It's common for downvotes to be given for wrong or incorrect statements, regardless of the manner or amount of respect. Downvotes do not necessarily indicate that someone is being inappropriate. And downvotes are not necessarily bad -- incorrect information should move to the bottom of the thread. Note also that downvotes don't prevent responding with why something is wrong. Think of what it means if downvotes are symmetric with upvotes. Upvotes are given for being right, being funny, being respectful, and a variety of other reasons. Nobody really asks why something is being upvoted. But people often take downvotes personally or assume they mean something specific, and people often ask why downvotes are being cast. Also be aware that the HN guidelines recommend not discussing voting, but your question is honest and you're newer here, so I hope this helps.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cyberferret 9y ago
I think it is time to end the mantra of "because I have a platform to say whatever I want, I will just say whatever I want". I enjoy browsing HN because the conversation are usually of a higher intellectual calibre, and I am here to learn as much as to contribute knowledge that is within my own domain. Therefore I believe it is a high priority to keep the signal to noise ratio well pegged in the 'signal' zone. Comments like the above are merely 'noise' which is based on ignorant preconceptions and doesn't really elicit meaningful discussion or move the conversation forward in any way. I rarely downvote, but do so when I think the post does not add significant value to the topic at hand.

by ben509 9y ago

eropple 9y ago

I didn't downvote it (though my incredulous reply has been upvoted pretty heavily), but I'll be frank: I don't think this kind of warm-take review of the pilot's radio manner would be made if it was a man. Being respectful-and-gross is not materially better than being gross, and so I'm not surprised that other people came to the same conclusion and tubed the post.

hueving 9y ago
>I don't think this kind of warm-take review of the pilot's radio manner would be made if it was a man. Every aviation incident discussed in /r/aviation is full of armchair analysts and critics. People on the internet like to put out controversial opinions about what people have done to feel relevant. Much like you ended up doing ascribing this to a sexism issue despite it being based on pace of speech.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Analysis and speculation (even if uninformed) about how they handled the incident is one thing "Why didn't they reduce speed and take a 25 mile approach instead of 20 mile?".... But criticizing the pilot for being too calm and speaking in slow deliberate sentences? That seems over the edge and sounds more like personal criticism.

hueving 9y ago

Because if you have no relevant experience, you shouldn't be making assertions about 'being too calm' since you have no clue what you're talking about. The commenter then digs in further with irrelevant opinions about why he/she thinks the pilot was too calm. It's like a non-programmer opening up some source code, then leaving a comment that the letter X is used too much because it's not used that much in articles on the NY Times.

mikestew 9y ago

but it's presented in an entirely respectful manner. A "respectful manner" first involves asking oneself, "what are the important aspects of flying an injured plane that I am ignorant of? In light of that, are my criticisms valid?" From where I sit, the original post did none of that. Nope, just "derpy, derp, she did not do it the way I, a person who has probably never flown a plane or handled a radio in an emergency situation, would do it." To put it more bluntly, it came across like someone talking out their arse.

dahart 9y ago

It's common for downvotes to be given for wrong or incorrect statements, regardless of the manner or amount of respect. Downvotes do not necessarily indicate that someone is being inappropriate. And downvotes are not necessarily bad -- incorrect information should move to the bottom of the thread. Note also that downvotes don't prevent responding with why something is wrong. Think of what it means if downvotes are symmetric with upvotes. Upvotes are given for being right, being funny, being respectful, and a variety of other reasons. Nobody really asks why something is being upvoted. But people often take downvotes personally or assume they mean something specific, and people often ask why downvotes are being cast. Also be aware that the HN guidelines recommend not discussing voting, but your question is honest and you're newer here, so I hope this helps.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cyberferret 9y ago

I think it is time to end the mantra of "because I have a platform to say whatever I want, I will just say whatever I want". I enjoy browsing HN because the conversation are usually of a higher intellectual calibre, and I am here to learn as much as to contribute knowledge that is within my own domain. Therefore I believe it is a high priority to keep the signal to noise ratio well pegged in the 'signal' zone. Comments like the above are merely 'noise' which is based on ignorant preconceptions and doesn't really elicit meaningful discussion or move the conversation forward in any way. I rarely downvote, but do so when I think the post does not add significant value to the topic at hand.