4 ms·

Ah, I had never heard of that term Gish gallop, but I've definitely heard people using that strategy, so thanks for the highlight on that. It actually reminds m

Ah, I had never heard of that term Gish gallop, but I've definitely heard people using that strategy, so thanks for the highlight on that. It actually reminds me of a goal of disinformation and even differential privacy—make it more expensive (e.g., time, money, energy) to investigate the truth. I'd like to think that this conversation on HN hasn't been that way—at times I felt lost in the weeds and yet I feel pretty confident in how I see it now. That there are two main questions: 1) Should the USPS be significantly changed (e.g., privatized, more efficient, restructured, etc.)? 2) Should the USPS be significantly changed now? After these comments, I'm much more concerned with the second question, because I can imagine there will be a lot of people who want it drastically changed but still can't explain why now is the time to do it, as I haven't seen many arguments here that convince me that the change is urgent and unrelated to the election.

rectang 6y ago
It's like we're standing in line at a convenience store when some guy jumps the counter, bludgeons the cashier, empties the register into his backpack, and you're all, "Excuse me, do you work here?" We cannot have a good faith debate about changing the USPS right now — the only sane response is to resist this attempt to sabotage our electoral machinery with all our strength. Engaging in farcical "debate" on the subject lends legitimacy to the sabotage and contributes to the harm. (But you can't say stuff like that on Hacker News. The forum is fragile; it can't hold such conversations without fracturing.)
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  I mean, if it were as clear to all bystanders and people outside of the store and across the country that there were someone bludgeoning a cashier, unprovoked, and stealing the money, then I'd agree that with that much consensus, what's the point of talking about it. I have many friends and family who I'm quite certain see actions by the administration as either innocuous or exciting—to privatize—or righteous and brave—to take on the "fraud that will be perpetuated through mail-in voting." The people who believe the latter won't be convinced through much debate, but the people in the former may, because they may believe strongly that it should be privatized and yet disagree that it should happen now. I can't speak for others, but I learned a lot in this short, 1-2 day dialogue. I want to learn how to have conversations with people who disagree with me to try to bring us closer to resolution. Oddly enough, I took a hostage negotiation training last year and want to strive to get better at resolving conflict as they do. That being said, asking a question like you posed at the beginning could confuse the guy and disarm him a bit, setting him up for further conversation and maybe resolving the conflict. In conclusion, I deeply appreciated this thread and what you contributed to it as well, because I feel more prepared for the conversations I'll inevitably have around this. And I think HN seems to have been handling it well, but I still kinda feel like an outsider here, so I don't know if I'm playing by the rules lol.

rectang 6y ago

It's like we're standing in line at a convenience store when some guy jumps the counter, bludgeons the cashier, empties the register into his backpack, and you're all, "Excuse me, do you work here?" We cannot have a good faith debate about changing the USPS right now — the only sane response is to resist this attempt to sabotage our electoral machinery with all our strength. Engaging in farcical "debate" on the subject lends legitimacy to the sabotage and contributes to the harm. (But you can't say stuff like that on Hacker News. The forum is fragile; it can't hold such conversations without fracturing.)

jimkleiber 6y ago
I mean, if it were as clear to all bystanders and people outside of the store and across the country that there were someone bludgeoning a cashier, unprovoked, and stealing the money, then I'd agree that with that much consensus, what's the point of talking about it. I have many friends and family who I'm quite certain see actions by the administration as either innocuous or exciting—to privatize—or righteous and brave—to take on the "fraud that will be perpetuated through mail-in voting." The people who believe the latter won't be convinced through much debate, but the people in the former may, because they may believe strongly that it should be privatized and yet disagree that it should happen now. I can't speak for others, but I learned a lot in this short, 1-2 day dialogue. I want to learn how to have conversations with people who disagree with me to try to bring us closer to resolution. Oddly enough, I took a hostage negotiation training last year and want to strive to get better at resolving conflict as they do. That being said, asking a question like you posed at the beginning could confuse the guy and disarm him a bit, setting him up for further conversation and maybe resolving the conflict. In conclusion, I deeply appreciated this thread and what you contributed to it as well, because I feel more prepared for the conversations I'll inevitably have around this. And I think HN seems to have been handling it well, but I still kinda feel like an outsider here, so I don't know if I'm playing by the rules lol.