3 ms·

I believe the concern here is that while the intentions to provide advice may be good, the actual result is harmful, and thus it is better not to provide advise

I believe the concern here is that while the intentions to provide advice may be good, the actual result is harmful, and thus it is better not to provide advisement unless explicitly requested in the specific context of someone who has a chronic illness. The assumption of providing advisement is 1) your advice might be helpful, 2) advising isn't itself a harmful act, 3) you have something worth advising about. In the specific case of a chonic illness, the probability is high that all these assumptions are not correct. Therefore, advising a chronically ill person requires exceptional behavior compared to someone who is not chronically ill. It's also important that this(unwanted advice) is a common issue that adversely affects a person's QoL, as they are forced to re-address the same ground consistently when they already have limited productive resources.

nate_meurer 8y ago
> adversely affects a person's QoL, as they are forced to re-address the same ground consistently when they already have limited productive resources. But that's not what happened here. Steve didn't prompt anyone for a response of any kind. He offered a quick one-liner of a suggestion. Shakna wasn't even part of that thread, and just dropped in to tell him to shut up. It's the internet man. You're quite free to disregard the advice.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  Shakna was attempting to use a common social cue, criticism, to prevent Steve from continuing to apply inappropriate social behavior, especially relevant given that Shakna has a decade of experience in the nuances of social dynamics in the context of chronic illness. I interpreted Shakna's sharp rebuke as no different than any other expert informing someone that they're participating in highly ignorant behavior. By criticizing Shakna, you are also participating in a social cue to try and prevent Shakna from continuing to apply inappropriate social behavior (in this case, criticizing others unnecessarily). Does "It's the internet man. You're quite free to disregard Shakna's criticism." not apply also to you?
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    Participating in a social cue...? I just... I don't know. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally capable of being offended by inane low-content posts on the internet. But I also put some effort into filtering my responses in deference to the recognition of my own biases and insular perspective. I fail a lot, but I try. Shakna's response seemed to lack any such self awareness. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe i'm speaking from a bubble again. But I do know, and I hate to point out the obvious here, that this is HN -- pretty much the opposite of any sort of health-issue-specific forum. If you post a note regarding a health issue here, you will get advice, likely involving keto nowadays. I understand Shakna's desire to mold HN into a place better suited to the specific needs of folks like Shakna. Nothing wrong with that. But Shakna's "decade of experience in the nuances of social dynamics in the context of chronic illness" is a lot of weight to expect a random techy internet forum thread to bear, and politely hand-slapping a random dude in a forum replete with dedicated keto experimenters is... well... it clearly risks frustration, right?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      But the ultracrepidarians need reminding that they don't know what they're talking about and that their well-meaning advice is not received as a freindly gesture, it's received as something that's fucking annoying.
      - nate_meurer 8y ago
        As someone who both bestows and lays claim to annoyance in generous measure, I won't dare to disagree.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      > If you post a note regarding a health issue here, you will get advice, likely involving keto nowadays. Does this mean this behavior should be considered acceptable, or that criticizing such behavior should be considered above criticism? > is a lot of weight to expect a random techy internet forum thread to bear, It is also weight to engage in it by providing unsolicited advice. By choosing to engage with the heavy subject, people can choose to engage with their engagement. This is normal human interaction regardless of its weight. > it clearly risks frustration, right? Is that for you to decide? I like to believe Shakna is intelligent enough to choose to engage in what they please, even if they are frustrated by it. It isn't my place to judge or advise them, and I'm frankly entirely uninterested in engaging with them about how frustrated they're allowed to get. I'm more interested in engaging with you about how much you should get to tell Shakna how they should react while reacting yourself.

nate_meurer 8y ago

> adversely affects a person's QoL, as they are forced to re-address the same ground consistently when they already have limited productive resources. But that's not what happened here. Steve didn't prompt anyone for a response of any kind. He offered a quick one-liner of a suggestion. Shakna wasn't even part of that thread, and just dropped in to tell him to shut up. It's the internet man. You're quite free to disregard the advice.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
Shakna was attempting to use a common social cue, criticism, to prevent Steve from continuing to apply inappropriate social behavior, especially relevant given that Shakna has a decade of experience in the nuances of social dynamics in the context of chronic illness. I interpreted Shakna's sharp rebuke as no different than any other expert informing someone that they're participating in highly ignorant behavior. By criticizing Shakna, you are also participating in a social cue to try and prevent Shakna from continuing to apply inappropriate social behavior (in this case, criticizing others unnecessarily). Does "It's the internet man. You're quite free to disregard Shakna's criticism." not apply also to you?
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  Participating in a social cue...? I just... I don't know. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally capable of being offended by inane low-content posts on the internet. But I also put some effort into filtering my responses in deference to the recognition of my own biases and insular perspective. I fail a lot, but I try. Shakna's response seemed to lack any such self awareness. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe i'm speaking from a bubble again. But I do know, and I hate to point out the obvious here, that this is HN -- pretty much the opposite of any sort of health-issue-specific forum. If you post a note regarding a health issue here, you will get advice, likely involving keto nowadays. I understand Shakna's desire to mold HN into a place better suited to the specific needs of folks like Shakna. Nothing wrong with that. But Shakna's "decade of experience in the nuances of social dynamics in the context of chronic illness" is a lot of weight to expect a random techy internet forum thread to bear, and politely hand-slapping a random dude in a forum replete with dedicated keto experimenters is... well... it clearly risks frustration, right?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    But the ultracrepidarians need reminding that they don't know what they're talking about and that their well-meaning advice is not received as a freindly gesture, it's received as something that's fucking annoying.
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      As someone who both bestows and lays claim to annoyance in generous measure, I won't dare to disagree.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    > If you post a note regarding a health issue here, you will get advice, likely involving keto nowadays. Does this mean this behavior should be considered acceptable, or that criticizing such behavior should be considered above criticism? > is a lot of weight to expect a random techy internet forum thread to bear, It is also weight to engage in it by providing unsolicited advice. By choosing to engage with the heavy subject, people can choose to engage with their engagement. This is normal human interaction regardless of its weight. > it clearly risks frustration, right? Is that for you to decide? I like to believe Shakna is intelligent enough to choose to engage in what they please, even if they are frustrated by it. It isn't my place to judge or advise them, and I'm frankly entirely uninterested in engaging with them about how frustrated they're allowed to get. I'm more interested in engaging with you about how much you should get to tell Shakna how they should react while reacting yourself.