4 ms·

Nay. This is possibly the most economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing event in generations, and will be for generations to come

Nay. This is possibly the most economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing event in generations, and will be for generations to come. It will be the most discussed topic around the world for all of 2020, and will continue to shape our lives, policies, regulations, laws, and social norms for decades. Ignore it if you want, but asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary.

slater 7y ago
I'm not ignoring it, nor asking anyone to do so. I agree with your post. I merely ask whether we need dozens of pretty much the exact same posts day-in, day-out. Nothing more. And I'm certainly NOT self-inducing blindness to this situation, sorry if it came across as such.
- auslegung 7y ago
  > I can't be the only one who's hiding all the stories about the pandemic, right? You're hiding all the stories about the pandemic. How is that not self-induced blindness? Nothing about my response, nor this response, is judgmental or attacking in any way. If you're hiding all the stories about something, you're blinding yourself to it. That's all.
dang 7y ago
Please don't attack fellow users like that. During economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing events, we need to take more care for each other, not less. Note this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- auslegung 7y ago
  What about my post was attacking? Also, may I quote you, at you? > "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Why wouldn't you assume good faith that when I said "asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary" I meant exactly what I said, without any rancor, malice, ill-will, etc? You may read my original reply with an angry tone of voice, a pleasant one, a curious one, a vindictive one, etc. But I have to believe, based on your comment, that you did not assume good faith with me but rather read my comment with something less than a pleasant tone of voice. Am I wrong?
  - dang 7y ago
    "Ignore it if you want, but asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness" contains at least three personal slights, of escalating intensity. For sure it's ok to quote the plausibility guideline at me. We all need to work at it, and it's not easy. I do find it implausible to read your sentence (the one I just quoted) as free of any rancor etc. If you tell me you wrote it in that spirit, I believe you, but intent doesn't communicate itself on the internet. Most of the time, when people post such things, they are flaming somebody—so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

slater 7y ago

I'm not ignoring it, nor asking anyone to do so. I agree with your post. I merely ask whether we need dozens of pretty much the exact same posts day-in, day-out. Nothing more. And I'm certainly NOT self-inducing blindness to this situation, sorry if it came across as such.

auslegung 7y ago
> I can't be the only one who's hiding all the stories about the pandemic, right? You're hiding all the stories about the pandemic. How is that not self-induced blindness? Nothing about my response, nor this response, is judgmental or attacking in any way. If you're hiding all the stories about something, you're blinding yourself to it. That's all.

dang 7y ago

Please don't attack fellow users like that. During economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing events, we need to take more care for each other, not less. Note this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

auslegung 7y ago
What about my post was attacking? Also, may I quote you, at you? > "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Why wouldn't you assume good faith that when I said "asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary" I meant exactly what I said, without any rancor, malice, ill-will, etc? You may read my original reply with an angry tone of voice, a pleasant one, a curious one, a vindictive one, etc. But I have to believe, based on your comment, that you did not assume good faith with me but rather read my comment with something less than a pleasant tone of voice. Am I wrong?
- dang 7y ago
  "Ignore it if you want, but asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness" contains at least three personal slights, of escalating intensity. For sure it's ok to quote the plausibility guideline at me. We all need to work at it, and it's not easy. I do find it implausible to read your sentence (the one I just quoted) as free of any rancor etc. If you tell me you wrote it in that spirit, I believe you, but intent doesn't communicate itself on the internet. Most of the time, when people post such things, they are flaming somebody—so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...