5 ms·
I don't agree - I think you come across a lot more persuasive when you attack the ideas rather than the person and you do it with less colorful language. Other
by fossuser 7y ago
I don't agree - I think you come across a lot more persuasive when you attack the ideas rather than the person and you do it with less colorful language.
Otherwise I think you only 'persuade' people that already agree with you and others that might have otherwise changed their minds are alienated.
That said, I generally like the idea of not banning people and I have a high tolerance for this kind of communication not really bothering me that much - but I still think it's generally bad form and probably does scare away others.
- kazinator 7y ago> ideas rather than the person The CoC people will not like that any better. Suppose you write a mailing list post which absolutely names no names, but only presents expressions of specific ideas, and then calls those ideas "toxic" and "loony", with justifications and all. That will still be equally offensive. It will be still be interpreted as an attack on the identifiable person or group behind those ideas, even though they have not been named.
- fossuser 7y ago> and you do it with less colorful language Focusing on ideas is better, but breaking down why you think something is wrong without being an ass is really the goal.
- antepodius 7y agoIs it? I've loosely followed this stuff for a few years, and I just don't see it. I just see people trying to punish the people they hate.