3 ms·

It's a toxic point of view because while it's technically correct, it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $

It's a toxic point of view because while it's technically correct, it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all". To the person giving the advice, it can seem valid and logical and perfectly straightforward - "hey I did it, it was easy!" Yet it's the very fact that it's easy for one person and effectively impossible for another is what makes the advice both useless and insulting. Before arguing further, have a thing about what you're defending here. As you've said yourself... - "I wouldn't be as blunt as the OP" - "I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do." - "I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering" But you're writing all these words to argue against the use of the word "toxic" to describe a comment that was insensitive for the very fact that it ignored these considerations you candidly offered. If you can just reflect a little and say "yeah I guess you could say it's a bit toxic to express it like that", you might realise we agree more than we disagree.

benj111 8y ago
"it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all"" It's as useful as saying to someone in debt, "you need to spend less than you earn" people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them. It is logical, yes, I'm not saying its straight forward, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't ignore any considerations, just because I didn't enumerate every single potential consideration. I picked up on one specific part of a reply. I don't think its required to explain my entire world view to make that one point. Neither is it fair to start filling in blanks about my world view from one data point. Yes I have reflected, I've reread that comment, and can see how someone could interpret it a certain way. That is why I have clarified myself multiple times. But you still seem to be ignoring what I have said I'm saying, in favour of your own interpretation of what you've already decided I'm saying. That isn't my problem, that is yours. Ps if you read the HN guideline it says "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" I applied that to the first 2 comments of this long thread. It's a shame others won't extend the same courtesy to me. It also says "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I’m sorry you felt attacked and that the rules were broken in doing so. I don’t see where I’ve called you a name or misrepresented your position, but sorry to make you feel I did. To be clear: > people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them This seems to be the key point of contention in the whole discussion. My position is that the reality is far more complex than this, and whether it is or not, the topic needs to be handled with great compassion and empathy. In some of your comments you seem to share these positions at least to some degree. Any further discussion would require us to go deep into metabolic physiology and behavioral psychology, but that’s best left for another time. Thanks for the discussion. (Edited to be more clear and conciliatory.)

benj111 8y ago

"it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all"" It's as useful as saying to someone in debt, "you need to spend less than you earn" people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them. It is logical, yes, I'm not saying its straight forward, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't ignore any considerations, just because I didn't enumerate every single potential consideration. I picked up on one specific part of a reply. I don't think its required to explain my entire world view to make that one point. Neither is it fair to start filling in blanks about my world view from one data point. Yes I have reflected, I've reread that comment, and can see how someone could interpret it a certain way. That is why I have clarified myself multiple times. But you still seem to be ignoring what I have said I'm saying, in favour of your own interpretation of what you've already decided I'm saying. That isn't my problem, that is yours. Ps if you read the HN guideline it says "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" I applied that to the first 2 comments of this long thread. It's a shame others won't extend the same courtesy to me. It also says "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomhoward 8y ago
I’m sorry you felt attacked and that the rules were broken in doing so. I don’t see where I’ve called you a name or misrepresented your position, but sorry to make you feel I did. To be clear: > people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them This seems to be the key point of contention in the whole discussion. My position is that the reality is far more complex than this, and whether it is or not, the topic needs to be handled with great compassion and empathy. In some of your comments you seem to share these positions at least to some degree. Any further discussion would require us to go deep into metabolic physiology and behavioral psychology, but that’s best left for another time. Thanks for the discussion. (Edited to be more clear and conciliatory.)