4 ms·
How does "official" status (which is in any case not required for the verb "eulogize") have any relevance to whether it's appropriate to challenge people in a c
by mrob 7y ago
How does "official" status (which is in any case not required for the verb "eulogize") have any relevance to whether it's appropriate to challenge people in a context where they can't respond to that challenge without breaking social obligations? If I say "Emacs is without a doubt the best editor", then I naturally expect Vi fans to defend their favorite editor. There is in fact doubt, and they can surely come up with reasons why Vi could be considered better. But if I make my claim when any defense of Vi would be downvoted for distracting from more important issues then I am not arguing in good faith.
- rowanG077 7y agoHe didn't challenge anyone. If you express your opinion "Emacs is without a doubt the best editor" in some other context related to Emacs then you aren't challenging anyone. You are simply expressing an opinion. Opinions don't have to be challenged. I read hundreds of opinions every day and guess what: some of them I don't agree with. That doesn't mean they are declarations of war or anything of the sort. It also doesn't mean I have to fight that opinion.
- mrob 7y agoMost opinions are not stated in a way that reads identical to a claim of factually superior rank. If I say "Emacs is my favorite editor" that is not challenging anybody. "Emacs is an excellent editor" is not challenging anybody either. But "Emacs is best without a doubt" leaves no room for any other editor to be best, and leaves no room for dismissal of the statement as just subjective opinion, so it is a direct challenge to all competitors.
- rowanG077 7y agoThe vast majority of all opinions are stated as a factual claim. Especially in an informal settings like you know a hackernews thread.
- mrob 7y agoI said specifically "a claim of factually superior rank". Just an opinion stated as fact is not the same thing. E.g. I looked at all the comments for the highest scoring article currently on the front page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20531987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20531987 ). I found opinions stated as fact, but none that simultaneously deprecated anything else.
- rowanG077 7y agoAn opinion that deprecates something else is just a subset of all opinions. It doesn't deserve special care.
- mrob 7y agoAll specific opinions are subsets of all opinions. Deprecating something is not a challenge if it is presented as subjective. It is the combination of deprecation and statement as fact (e.g. "without a doubt") that is confrontational. And confrontational opinions are perfectly acceptable in the correct context. My claim is that a context where any disagreement breaks social conventions is the wrong context.
- rowanG077 7y ago> All specific opinions are subsets of all opinions. Yes and? why repeat something obvious. > Deprecating something is not a challenge if it is presented as subjective. It is the combination of deprecation and statement as fact (e.g. "without a doubt") that is confrontational. And confrontational opinions are perfectly acceptable in the correct context. My claim is that a context where any disagreement breaks social conventions is the wrong context. An opinion itself can never be confrontational. It's a person that takes it as a confrontation. Just like offense is taken not given.
- mrob 7y ago>Yes and? why repeat something obvious. To illustrate that your response was a tautology, and therefore it did not contribute to your argument. >An opinion itself can never be confrontational. But an expression of an opinion can be. If I say "I am 100% certain that [thing I like] is better than [thing you like]", that is a challenge to you. And it is not a fair argument if I say it in a context where you can't reply without punishment.