3 ms·

What is it I'm doing wrong and why is this an inappropriate forum for it?

mercer 8y ago
It's insane to this forum, is what. Whether it is actually insane is irrelevant, it just won't have any traction here and cause needless noise.
- LukeB42 8y ago
  I was speaking to a different entity. The mod I was speaking to probably wouldn't use an ad hominem as their basis for an unrealistic forecast.
  - mercer 8y ago
    I didn't read your other comments, so it's not an ad hominem. I'm just saying that I'm confident enough that this particular comment of yours or others like it will just be 'noise' here, and possibly an exercise in frustration for you. But you're right that you didn't ask me. I just felt like responding, considering this is a public forum where both you and I have the ability to just say stuff. Anyways, by all means keep at it, if that's what you feel like doing!
    - LukeB42 8y ago
      It's an ad hominem on the comment itself to just dismiss it as insane though, is it not? Just because it's not something you want to talk about doesn't mean it's not going to have traction with other people who have the ability to just say stuff.
      - mercer 8y ago
        I feel confident enough that I don't think it will, and I wouldn't describe myself as generally very confident in matters of group psychology. Anyways, I checked out your other comments and I regret getting into an argument about this. You seem much smarter than me in many ways, and I welcome your contributions, and while I personally feel that 'the collective' here will consider some of it noise and very downvotable (possibly even hellbannable), I hope that doesn't happen and that you stick around. Again, my apologies for what I suppose could be considered participating in or enforcing groupthink. EDIT: let me add that I'm certifiably weird and perhaps that's made me sensitive to these kinds of things. sometimes it's best to 'soften' the edges so that engagement is possible in the first place, and sometimes that increases the chances that I can actually discuss my 'weird' beliefs without being dismissed. I've not figured out the right balance, and I'm not even 100% sure that finding a balance is the right thing. but it's what prompted this.
        LukeB42 8y ago
        I appreciate you challenging my initial post in this thread. Thanks for the reality check. Finding a balance is constant and inescapable anyway, is it not?
        mercer 8y ago
        Pff, don't get me started :). My approach has been, for about the past decade or two, to spend a lot of time, energy, and possibly happiness, on figuring out how to blend in and be inoffensive. I'm not entirely sure it was worth it, but at least I feel it's allowed me to be my 'authentic' self without being dismissed in many situations, so that's something. And there are even times when I feel validated, which I think is quite valuable. We're social creatures ultimately, most of us anyways. Considering my uncertainty about this approach, though, I shouldn't be lecturing others!
        LukeB42 8y ago
        Best thing I did was read the book of Proverbs (KJV), FWIW.
        reitanqild 8y ago
        I've enjoyed that as well, I used to read it when I eas younger. Now I've just read the ESV2 version of the last few chapters in parallell with my native language during the last few days. :-)
        mercer 8y ago
        I've read the NIV version multiple times (as well as the equivalent in my language). thanks for the reminder to check it out again :).
  - iDemonix 8y ago
    Speaking of unrealistic forecasts...
    - LukeB42 8y ago
      What's up with it?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
MrLeap 8y ago
On its face, you're casually suggesting vapor trails from aircraft as the cause of Europe's CO2 shortage. Rather than elaborate on your chain of thought, you go right towards predicting distopia. I'm guessing your image isn't a vapor trail reference, but a reference to "chem trails". Chem trails are controversial and widely regarded as a conspiracy theory. The main criticisms I'd have for your contribution are these: Your comment is erratic, has spurious relation to the article, makes vague references to controversial conspiracies and provides no evidence. In my opinion, this is an inappropriate forum for it simply because it's a better without it. Someone smarter than me could probably point out specific HN rules though.
- LukeB42 8y ago
  I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense. "conspiracy theory" is widely understood to be a derisive term the CIA had to invent after they shot Kennedy. Here's a contrail next to a chemtrail on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 My comment is not erratic. Saying my comment is erratic is like saying you're afraid of loud noises. My comment does not have "spurious" relation to the article. My comment has a holistic big-picture relation to the article.
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    No offense taken. To be honest, HN is often very receptive to controversial ideas, but there's certain unwritten shibboleths. You break one by effectively saying "I think chem-trails are to blame" without more foundation. That sentence in isolation is like a hand-grenade. It's pretty much exclusively divisive. Maybe try acknowledging people's skepticism, list a few reasons why you personally believe in it, and bring it around to something a little more focused on the article (your picture was too big, it's hard to follow). I bet something like that wouldn't get dismantled like this was.
    - LukeB42 8y ago
      I agree now that the basis for chemtrails could have done with being established in my initial post. For some reason I assumed other HN users had had similar experiences I've had with seeing them right next to contrails in real life. Wasn't intending to produce entertainment to consume. Just wanted to provoke serious, thoughtful discussion of the likelihood that these phenomena are related.

It's insane to this forum, is what. Whether it is actually insane is irrelevant, it just won't have any traction here and cause needless noise.

LukeB42 8y ago
I was speaking to a different entity. The mod I was speaking to probably wouldn't use an ad hominem as their basis for an unrealistic forecast.
- mercer 8y ago
  I didn't read your other comments, so it's not an ad hominem. I'm just saying that I'm confident enough that this particular comment of yours or others like it will just be 'noise' here, and possibly an exercise in frustration for you. But you're right that you didn't ask me. I just felt like responding, considering this is a public forum where both you and I have the ability to just say stuff. Anyways, by all means keep at it, if that's what you feel like doing!
  - LukeB42 8y ago
    It's an ad hominem on the comment itself to just dismiss it as insane though, is it not? Just because it's not something you want to talk about doesn't mean it's not going to have traction with other people who have the ability to just say stuff.
    - mercer 8y ago
      I feel confident enough that I don't think it will, and I wouldn't describe myself as generally very confident in matters of group psychology. Anyways, I checked out your other comments and I regret getting into an argument about this. You seem much smarter than me in many ways, and I welcome your contributions, and while I personally feel that 'the collective' here will consider some of it noise and very downvotable (possibly even hellbannable), I hope that doesn't happen and that you stick around. Again, my apologies for what I suppose could be considered participating in or enforcing groupthink. EDIT: let me add that I'm certifiably weird and perhaps that's made me sensitive to these kinds of things. sometimes it's best to 'soften' the edges so that engagement is possible in the first place, and sometimes that increases the chances that I can actually discuss my 'weird' beliefs without being dismissed. I've not figured out the right balance, and I'm not even 100% sure that finding a balance is the right thing. but it's what prompted this.
      - LukeB42 8y ago
        I appreciate you challenging my initial post in this thread. Thanks for the reality check. Finding a balance is constant and inescapable anyway, is it not?
        mercer 8y ago
        Pff, don't get me started :). My approach has been, for about the past decade or two, to spend a lot of time, energy, and possibly happiness, on figuring out how to blend in and be inoffensive. I'm not entirely sure it was worth it, but at least I feel it's allowed me to be my 'authentic' self without being dismissed in many situations, so that's something. And there are even times when I feel validated, which I think is quite valuable. We're social creatures ultimately, most of us anyways. Considering my uncertainty about this approach, though, I shouldn't be lecturing others!
        LukeB42 8y ago
        Best thing I did was read the book of Proverbs (KJV), FWIW.
        reitanqild 8y ago
        I've enjoyed that as well, I used to read it when I eas younger. Now I've just read the ESV2 version of the last few chapters in parallell with my native language during the last few days. :-)
        mercer 8y ago
        I've read the NIV version multiple times (as well as the equivalent in my language). thanks for the reminder to check it out again :).
- iDemonix 8y ago
  Speaking of unrealistic forecasts...
  - LukeB42 8y ago
    What's up with it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

MrLeap 8y ago

On its face, you're casually suggesting vapor trails from aircraft as the cause of Europe's CO2 shortage. Rather than elaborate on your chain of thought, you go right towards predicting distopia. I'm guessing your image isn't a vapor trail reference, but a reference to "chem trails". Chem trails are controversial and widely regarded as a conspiracy theory. The main criticisms I'd have for your contribution are these: Your comment is erratic, has spurious relation to the article, makes vague references to controversial conspiracies and provides no evidence. In my opinion, this is an inappropriate forum for it simply because it's a better without it. Someone smarter than me could probably point out specific HN rules though.

LukeB42 8y ago
I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense. "conspiracy theory" is widely understood to be a derisive term the CIA had to invent after they shot Kennedy. Here's a contrail next to a chemtrail on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 My comment is not erratic. Saying my comment is erratic is like saying you're afraid of loud noises. My comment does not have "spurious" relation to the article. My comment has a holistic big-picture relation to the article.
- MrLeap 8y ago
  No offense taken. To be honest, HN is often very receptive to controversial ideas, but there's certain unwritten shibboleths. You break one by effectively saying "I think chem-trails are to blame" without more foundation. That sentence in isolation is like a hand-grenade. It's pretty much exclusively divisive. Maybe try acknowledging people's skepticism, list a few reasons why you personally believe in it, and bring it around to something a little more focused on the article (your picture was too big, it's hard to follow). I bet something like that wouldn't get dismantled like this was.
  - LukeB42 8y ago
    I agree now that the basis for chemtrails could have done with being established in my initial post. For some reason I assumed other HN users had had similar experiences I've had with seeing them right next to contrails in real life. Wasn't intending to produce entertainment to consume. Just wanted to provoke serious, thoughtful discussion of the likelihood that these phenomena are related.