3 ms·

The default position should be skepticism for everyone. Including hacker news. I know I get constantly downvoted for skeptical view points here in the comments,

The default position should be skepticism for everyone. Including hacker news. I know I get constantly downvoted for skeptical view points here in the comments, I wish it were not so but quite a few people here engage in bullshit. Most commonly seen types of bullshit here is, ancap philosophy, cryptocurrency advocacy, diet fads, and chemophobia.

smt88 7y ago
Your impression, that HN is skeptic-hostile, is the opposite of my experience. I browsed some of your comment history for evidence supporting your position. I saw that your downvoted comments fit into buckets I often see downvoted (what I observe, not what I do myself): - excessive profanity - making a factual mistake - saying something sarcastic In the case of sarcasm, HN seems to dislike it either because the comment is taken sincerely or because it "doesn't add" to the conversation. I didn't see any evidence that you were downvoted for skepticism.
- stillbourne 7y ago
  I use profanity, I don't see it as excessive. "Bullshit" is probably my most often used obscenity but in the world of skepticism its used as an interjection when someone is dead wrong in the same way a religious person would blurt out "blasphemy" whenever someone takes the lords name in vein or such. Also, I do get downvoted for skepticism, not for factual mistakes. Show me where you believe I have made a factual mistake and I will show you the academic papers that back me up. Additionally, According to "The Relationship Between Profanity and Honesty" by Gilad Feldman et. al. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550616681055 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550616681055 those who use profanity are typically more honest than those who don't. So why would hacker news be against profanity if it holds the skeptical view.
  - smt88 7y ago
    I doubt many people here are "against" profanity. From only my own anecdata, my assumption is that it makes your comment sound emotional or childish to people. For example, I agree with what you wrote recently[1] about diet fads, but you did yourself a disservice by starting the comment with, "What? No! Fucking hell." Your position is reasonable, but it begins like a lot of angry, irrational rants that we see on HN. I assume some people downvoted without getting past the first sentence. I think something similar happened when you railed against reddit[2]. I agree with you, but you come across as cranky. Finally, I see some examples of personal comments that are often downvoted. In one case, you say someone is a libertarian without knowing them (and seemingly in a dismissive way)[3]. You also have at least one post flagged for being personal[4]. My overarching suggestion is this: HN has a very different implicit culture than reddit. While I agree with you on almost all of your ideological positions, I also agree with HN's downvotes most of the time. The culture of "unemotional, value-add comments only" gives HN a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than reddit. There are also surprisingly few flamewars here. If you find your emotions appearing in your comment, take a few more seconds to re-read and edit them out. I think that in the marketplace of ideas, yours are fairly reasonable and popular, but the tone seems to rub people here the wrong way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20141441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20141441 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19572278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19572278 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781643 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781789
    - stillbourne 7y ago
      Conversely, do you understand how petty it sounds me? "Ew, he used a cuss. Better down vote him." Does swearing detract from the formulation of my argument? No. Does it add a little spice to conversation? Maybe. However, the idea that I should not use a tone of voice that conveys shock when someone states something outrageous is beyond ridiculous. Yes the emotion and swearing is extraneous, but I'm not going to respond in plebeian fashion just on the off chance I might offend someone. We're a bunch of grown ups here, no need to pretend like this is some sort of library where we can't raise our voices a little. I will admit that perhaps I got too personal on occasion. Also I was not aware of the rules for comments as I had not previously read them.

smt88 7y ago

Your impression, that HN is skeptic-hostile, is the opposite of my experience. I browsed some of your comment history for evidence supporting your position. I saw that your downvoted comments fit into buckets I often see downvoted (what I observe, not what I do myself): - excessive profanity - making a factual mistake - saying something sarcastic In the case of sarcasm, HN seems to dislike it either because the comment is taken sincerely or because it "doesn't add" to the conversation. I didn't see any evidence that you were downvoted for skepticism.

stillbourne 7y ago
I use profanity, I don't see it as excessive. "Bullshit" is probably my most often used obscenity but in the world of skepticism its used as an interjection when someone is dead wrong in the same way a religious person would blurt out "blasphemy" whenever someone takes the lords name in vein or such. Also, I do get downvoted for skepticism, not for factual mistakes. Show me where you believe I have made a factual mistake and I will show you the academic papers that back me up. Additionally, According to "The Relationship Between Profanity and Honesty" by Gilad Feldman et. al. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550616681055 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550616681055 those who use profanity are typically more honest than those who don't. So why would hacker news be against profanity if it holds the skeptical view.
- smt88 7y ago
  I doubt many people here are "against" profanity. From only my own anecdata, my assumption is that it makes your comment sound emotional or childish to people. For example, I agree with what you wrote recently[1] about diet fads, but you did yourself a disservice by starting the comment with, "What? No! Fucking hell." Your position is reasonable, but it begins like a lot of angry, irrational rants that we see on HN. I assume some people downvoted without getting past the first sentence. I think something similar happened when you railed against reddit[2]. I agree with you, but you come across as cranky. Finally, I see some examples of personal comments that are often downvoted. In one case, you say someone is a libertarian without knowing them (and seemingly in a dismissive way)[3]. You also have at least one post flagged for being personal[4]. My overarching suggestion is this: HN has a very different implicit culture than reddit. While I agree with you on almost all of your ideological positions, I also agree with HN's downvotes most of the time. The culture of "unemotional, value-add comments only" gives HN a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than reddit. There are also surprisingly few flamewars here. If you find your emotions appearing in your comment, take a few more seconds to re-read and edit them out. I think that in the marketplace of ideas, yours are fairly reasonable and popular, but the tone seems to rub people here the wrong way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20141441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20141441 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19572278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19572278 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781643 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18781789
  - stillbourne 7y ago
    Conversely, do you understand how petty it sounds me? "Ew, he used a cuss. Better down vote him." Does swearing detract from the formulation of my argument? No. Does it add a little spice to conversation? Maybe. However, the idea that I should not use a tone of voice that conveys shock when someone states something outrageous is beyond ridiculous. Yes the emotion and swearing is extraneous, but I'm not going to respond in plebeian fashion just on the off chance I might offend someone. We're a bunch of grown ups here, no need to pretend like this is some sort of library where we can't raise our voices a little. I will admit that perhaps I got too personal on occasion. Also I was not aware of the rules for comments as I had not previously read them.