4 ms·
It’s not just ‘snarky’, it’s outright patronizing, and intentionally so.
by wanderer2323 6y ago
It’s not just ‘snarky’, it’s outright patronizing, and intentionally so.
- dang 6y agoYour comment made me think about some interesting aspects of moderation, which I'll post in case anyone else finds them interesting. (None of this is about the GP comment—I'm just speaking generally.) Even if your claim is true, it generally works better to lay out a weak moderation case rather than to make the strongest one. Also, the stronger the case you mount, the higher the odds that you've misinterpreted someone. Those are two separate issues, btw. The first is about effectiveness, the second is about risk. Taking on higher risk for lower effectiveness is a bad trade, so I try not to do that. Intention is notoriously difficult to assess, especially online. If you make claims about someone's intention, they will usually say "that wasn't my intention". That just distracts from what was concretely wrong about a comment. Moreover, the community—which is the jury—is less likely to support claims about intention than specific things one can point to in a post. So again, it makes moderation less effective while putting it in a riskier position—another bad trade!
- wanderer2323 6y agothank you for sharing this, it's very interesting to read.