4 ms·

I have seen far worse passive-aggressiveness here (most often it's a variation of "why anyone would think X is beyond me" or "You do X ? I do Y because of reaso

I have seen far worse passive-aggressiveness here (most often it's a variation of "why anyone would think X is beyond me" or "You do X ? I do Y because of reasons and I would certainly never do X but do it if you want."). It might be a globish issue but I don't see any hostilities in OP's comments. [0] > > This is factually wrong. Your information is deprecated. How would you phrase that ? [0] but I also believe that HN has members from many different cultures and lot of what is being discussed suffer from too much variety in communication style.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> How would you phrase that ? Maybe "I am not entirely sure I feel convinced that nobody would disagree with this description providing sufficient convergence with what might be argued is a valid way to interpret reality". Or maybe "that's being disingenuous", another classic of sophisticated kindness.
- tsumnia 7y ago
  I disagree with that style of writing. Your example sentence comes off as heavily passive voiced rather than sophisticated kindness.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    I agree, I was being sarcastic. I find this overly flowery and passive language more dishonest than polite, because it means the same thing, but with added plausible deniability/indirection, and more useless work for the reader. "This is wrong" always implies "IMO/to my knowledge" anyway, and is functionally equivalent to "I feel / it could be argued that this might be wrong" and all that, except that the writer has the courtesy to speak up when they are ready to actually express an opinion, not just to allude to the possibility of someone, possibly them, expressing an opinion or making an argument.
    - infinitezest 7y ago
      > "This is wrong" always implies "IMO/to my knowledge" anyway, and is functionally equivalent to "I feel / it could be argued that this might be wrong" and all that, except that the writer has the courtesy to speak up when they are ready to actually express an opinion, not just to allude to the possibility of someone, possibly them, expressing an opinion or making an argument. They are not "functionally equivalent" if they effect the reader in two different ways. I would infer an aggressive attitude on the part of the speaker which makes the meat of the message more difficult to parse. Should I, for my part, try to get better at parsing messages delivered in such a format? Sure. But the question of whether or not you want to be heard still leaves some onus on the speaker to consider their audience. But it's complicated, right? There seem to be quite a few people in this thread that strongly prefer one over the other.
macintux 7y ago
Interestingly, that's no longer correct. Historically, yes 465 has been deprecated several years ago. But as many ISP and the largest email services kept using it, the IANA had to change its tune and 'resurrected' port 465 in this RFC. It is funny: the RFC itself describes that as a wart, but reality is a harsh mistress. Section 3-3 of RFC 8314 from 2018 has the details.
- macintux 7y ago
  Note: I left the middle sentences entirely alone because they had a friendly tone.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Well, "Interestingly" (what?) and "It is funny but" sound patronizing to my ears. I'd use that language if I wanted to rub someone's nose into it and subtly hint they are stupid to other participants, especially at that point of the conversation.
  - nemetroid 7y ago
    "It is funny [...] but [...]" is quoted from the original comment.
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      Yeah, I saw that. It's the combination that ticks me off.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Doesn’t that mean that you set out to interpret messages in that way? I guess this is the reverse of nonviolent communication. If you always speak and are used to communicating agressively, then people that are being nice suddenly sound condescending.
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      > Doesn’t that mean that you set out to interpret messages in that way? Yes, it does. But then it's still up to me to try to overcome my first reaction. I don't always succeed. > I guess this is the reverse of nonviolent communication. If you always speak and are used to communicating agressively, then people that are being nice suddenly sound condescending. "Always" ? Interesting choice of word when talking about non violent communication :). Snark aside, I don't see myself as communicating aggressively. I may be wrong. I certainly don't put myself in the camp of "people who tell it like it is" though. Also, faking being nice can really be annoying.
mokus 7y ago
> How would you phrase that ? One way that comes to mind is along the lines of “It was deprecated, true, but it’s actually back in favor now because...”

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> How would you phrase that ? Maybe "I am not entirely sure I feel convinced that nobody would disagree with this description providing sufficient convergence with what might be argued is a valid way to interpret reality". Or maybe "that's being disingenuous", another classic of sophisticated kindness.

tsumnia 7y ago
I disagree with that style of writing. Your example sentence comes off as heavily passive voiced rather than sophisticated kindness.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  I agree, I was being sarcastic. I find this overly flowery and passive language more dishonest than polite, because it means the same thing, but with added plausible deniability/indirection, and more useless work for the reader. "This is wrong" always implies "IMO/to my knowledge" anyway, and is functionally equivalent to "I feel / it could be argued that this might be wrong" and all that, except that the writer has the courtesy to speak up when they are ready to actually express an opinion, not just to allude to the possibility of someone, possibly them, expressing an opinion or making an argument.
  - infinitezest 7y ago
    > "This is wrong" always implies "IMO/to my knowledge" anyway, and is functionally equivalent to "I feel / it could be argued that this might be wrong" and all that, except that the writer has the courtesy to speak up when they are ready to actually express an opinion, not just to allude to the possibility of someone, possibly them, expressing an opinion or making an argument. They are not "functionally equivalent" if they effect the reader in two different ways. I would infer an aggressive attitude on the part of the speaker which makes the meat of the message more difficult to parse. Should I, for my part, try to get better at parsing messages delivered in such a format? Sure. But the question of whether or not you want to be heard still leaves some onus on the speaker to consider their audience. But it's complicated, right? There seem to be quite a few people in this thread that strongly prefer one over the other.

macintux 7y ago

Interestingly, that's no longer correct. Historically, yes 465 has been deprecated several years ago. But as many ISP and the largest email services kept using it, the IANA had to change its tune and 'resurrected' port 465 in this RFC. It is funny: the RFC itself describes that as a wart, but reality is a harsh mistress. Section 3-3 of RFC 8314 from 2018 has the details.

macintux 7y ago
Note: I left the middle sentences entirely alone because they had a friendly tone.
johnchristopher 7y ago
Well, "Interestingly" (what?) and "It is funny but" sound patronizing to my ears. I'd use that language if I wanted to rub someone's nose into it and subtly hint they are stupid to other participants, especially at that point of the conversation.
- nemetroid 7y ago
  "It is funny [...] but [...]" is quoted from the original comment.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    Yeah, I saw that. It's the combination that ticks me off.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Doesn’t that mean that you set out to interpret messages in that way? I guess this is the reverse of nonviolent communication. If you always speak and are used to communicating agressively, then people that are being nice suddenly sound condescending.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    > Doesn’t that mean that you set out to interpret messages in that way? Yes, it does. But then it's still up to me to try to overcome my first reaction. I don't always succeed. > I guess this is the reverse of nonviolent communication. If you always speak and are used to communicating agressively, then people that are being nice suddenly sound condescending. "Always" ? Interesting choice of word when talking about non violent communication :). Snark aside, I don't see myself as communicating aggressively. I may be wrong. I certainly don't put myself in the camp of "people who tell it like it is" though. Also, faking being nice can really be annoying.

mokus 7y ago

> How would you phrase that ? One way that comes to mind is along the lines of “It was deprecated, true, but it’s actually back in favor now because...”