4 ms·
I’d add arguing by using inline quotes. Example: some snippet of text from parent comment I disagree because x, y, z. another snippet This is wrong because
by thomasmeeks 8y ago
I’d add arguing by using inline quotes. Example:
some snippet of text from parent comment
I disagree because x, y, z.
another snippet
This is wrong because a, b, c.
(End example)
Doing so obliterates context from a position, especially long form comments (which is the main reason I’m here) in two main ways. First, the technique rarely reproduces the parent in its entirety, picking out black and white statements that are easier to argue against from a sea of nuance. Second, it cuts up the narrative in such a way that downplays the rationale of a position by either leaving out reasoning, or placing arguments between the reasoning and the conclusion.
Sure, the readers can go back and reread the parent. But when the structure of an argument depends on those snippets (and it almost always does) it becomes very difficult to grok.
Generally I just see it as a big warning sign that the quoter is more interested in winning than learning or getting to the truth of the matter and thus is best ignored.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoMaybe it's my age and having come up via years of Usenet where inline quoting was absolutely standard, but I find inline quoting of a discussion helps me keep the flow of discussion. I find it's easier to follow than trying to retain a lengthy parent that a commenter is replying to, also at length. If it's a long comment it's also likely some commenters are only able to address parts of it - again an inline quote clarifies. I've never had cause to see it as a warning sign or more likely to be someone scoring points, that's going to happen sometimes with or without inline snippets.
- thomasmeeks 8y agoI can see that, and perhaps my experience has just been unlucky. I missed usenet by a few years.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoHmm, actually something just came to mind where quoting may hinder, though I've seen it with and without. Quoting may help focus on misdirection. Where someone wants to have a good argument rather than have a discussion. More a reddit game than HN but it does sometimes happen here, e.g. Someone making point with a couple of paragraphs. Commenter takes one sentence or point to shred, maybe it was a weak example or poorly phrased, to invalidate the whole. repeat. After a few rounds it's becoming clear they're intentionally avoiding the main point. Have I just committed the cardinal sin of being wrong on the internet? ;)
- thomasmeeks 8y agoWell you comitted the blessing of helping me feel heard so hopefully that balances out the sin. :) Exactly my point.
- 628C6l0 8y ago> Generally I just see it as a big warning sign that the quoter is more interested in winning than learning or getting to the truth of the matter and thus is best ignored. But,to be fully honest, isn't it what this kind of conversation is about, ultimately speaking? There is a reason it happens mostly in low-stake contexts: dinner tables, casual conversation, comments section. Places where "bullshit pass" is implicitly granted to all participants. If we are not allowed to pick and choose and distort other's meanings then where's the fun and drama in all of this?
- thomasmeeks 8y agoWe differ on worldviews I think. I don’t find conversations interesting or fun if a bullshit pass has been granted. The point of a low stakes conversation to me is learning something about a person or subject — so distoring overmuch causes me to disengage (if & only if low stakes).
- lylecubed 8y ago> The point of a low stakes conversation to me is learning something about a person or subject That point of view is getting rarer and rarer, especially on the internet. Which is unfortunate. It has ruined online discourse for me almost completely.