5 ms·

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. People can't help themselves. They want to defend their choices, even when their choices aren't under scrutiny. They will follow up with a fallacy or two and they start arguing from positions that are so ludicrous that even with the best initial intentions you forget to point out the fallacies they must obviously have committed to arrive at their starting point and just start refuting them. That way, they suck you in. Only if there are sufficiently many people in a community resistant to this kind of trolling, pointing it out to each other and refraining from feeding the trolls, only then can sensible discussion come about. But it's hard not to get sucked in. It reminds me of David Foster Wallace's speech about being aware of the water that you are in: it's hard work and requires an amount of self-awareness that can be exhausting.

raganwald 15y ago
That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. Nobody forces you to pander to these people's neuroses. You are not the troll whisperer. This over here is my favourite interview question. That over there is my favourite line of Ruby code. This is my favourite book. I wrote blog posts about all of these subjects and attracted exactly the responses you describe. But I was happiest when I ignored the people who had an agenda of arguing about their favourite interview question or their favoruite line of code or their favourite book. Nobody compels you to play their game. So don't.
- Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
  By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Choosing to believe something about what I believe based on my expressing my like for something is not neurotic. ASking me to explain myself or seeking further information about my choices is certainly not neurotic. Choosing to believe I'm an idiot because you like something else and because I didn't attempt to intellectually bludgeon you into agreeing with me is _____, but it's not neurotic. But someone getting so invested in what they think that a stranger believes, such that they have to start a flame war? And expecting that I have some sort of obligation to their egocentricity such that I must respond to their questions? Well, I'm not a psychologist, so the odds are strongly against this being clinically neurotic. But it isn't for me, and I don't feel a compulsion to play along. p.s. Again, this isn't about people's right to believe what they want to believe. I'm ok with people believing I'm an idiot. They may be right! But what I'm talking about is whether I have to respond. I don't. I also don't have to worry about it when I write such that I try to deflect criticism or protect my reputation.
- Confusion 15y ago
  I find it difficult not to respond for at least two reasons: - The information is often factually wrong. Letting wrong information go uncorrected will lead to that information spreading and that doesn't seem like a good thing to me. - It often doesn't seem to be the intention of people to troll and it is hard to suppress the urge to teach. It would be awesome if you could get more people to intentionally not-troll. The first may be an instance of http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ and the second may be a case of vanity (thinking you can change people), but just ignoring people doesn't improve things either, so shouldn't you at least try? Unfortunately, attempting to address both these points simultaneously seems a recipe for disaster and just results in 'feeding the troll'.
edw 15y ago
I find it depressing that your comment was down-voted by at least two people — two people who, by virtue of their karma, are supposed to somehow have an understanding of what a productive comment is and what it isn't. The response your comment has received from these Gaurdian[1]-like members of our supposed nerd virtual polis[1] is evidence that you have a point. Several weeks ago, Daring Fireball featured a link to an exchange between Ian Fleming and a man who wrote him offering suggestions (and a critique of James Bond's current) pistol selection. In a comment here at HN, I believe, someone noted the civility, the maturity of the exchange. I thought about that comment, and I decided that I was going to try to restrain myself and make comments that a hypothetical adult might make. HN is part of a problem, and that problem is what I'll call the cable news-ification of everything. No, not the Fox News-ification, but the cable news-ification, because the premise of all these channels is that when something happens, the most important thing is to have an opinion about what happened, and to broadcast and debate that opinion as vigorously as possible. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  "I find it depressing that your comment was down-voted by at least two people — two people who, by virtue of their karma, are supposed to somehow have an understanding of what a productive comment is and what it isn't." Am I missing something, or how can one possibly see a list of downvoters for a given comment?
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    You need at least ~500 karma to downvote.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      Thanks :). I've (mistakenly) assumed that you need to see the list of downvoters to make a statement such as edw's, whereas I now see how, having information you and edw provided, you can just infer this statement. A lesson to learn for me here :).
prodigal_erik 15y ago
When I read "X is great" while using Y, I reflexively put my choice under scrutiny. I see that as the main reason to talk about technologies X or Y at all. And if X has some terrible drawback, network effects can make it worthwhile for me to dissuade other people. Hg vs. git isn't a compelling example, but if I want to never face another svn-induced merge conflict again, I myself am actually better off if everyone I may collaborate with already knows how troublesome that tool is (I would have said "nightmarish" in the svnmerge.py days).
nasmorn 15y ago
I think it does. I for example are somewhat attached to my decision of using git and would probably dismiss someone telling me how much it sucks. On the other hand I am not a power user, it intimidates me at times. If I read a post explaining a mercurial workflow that looked easier then what I do now I might check it out. Yeah you read correctly, I didn't even install mercurial. I just moved from svn to git once rails and most gems did. I guess I am not the only one so there are people youcould convince.

raganwald 15y ago

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. Nobody forces you to pander to these people's neuroses. You are not the troll whisperer. This over here is my favourite interview question. That over there is my favourite line of Ruby code. This is my favourite book. I wrote blog posts about all of these subjects and attracted exactly the responses you describe. But I was happiest when I ignored the people who had an agenda of arguing about their favourite interview question or their favoruite line of code or their favourite book. Nobody compels you to play their game. So don't.

Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Choosing to believe something about what I believe based on my expressing my like for something is not neurotic. ASking me to explain myself or seeking further information about my choices is certainly not neurotic. Choosing to believe I'm an idiot because you like something else and because I didn't attempt to intellectually bludgeon you into agreeing with me is _____, but it's not neurotic. But someone getting so invested in what they think that a stranger believes, such that they have to start a flame war? And expecting that I have some sort of obligation to their egocentricity such that I must respond to their questions? Well, I'm not a psychologist, so the odds are strongly against this being clinically neurotic. But it isn't for me, and I don't feel a compulsion to play along. p.s. Again, this isn't about people's right to believe what they want to believe. I'm ok with people believing I'm an idiot. They may be right! But what I'm talking about is whether I have to respond. I don't. I also don't have to worry about it when I write such that I try to deflect criticism or protect my reputation.
Confusion 15y ago
I find it difficult not to respond for at least two reasons: - The information is often factually wrong. Letting wrong information go uncorrected will lead to that information spreading and that doesn't seem like a good thing to me. - It often doesn't seem to be the intention of people to troll and it is hard to suppress the urge to teach. It would be awesome if you could get more people to intentionally not-troll. The first may be an instance of http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ and the second may be a case of vanity (thinking you can change people), but just ignoring people doesn't improve things either, so shouldn't you at least try? Unfortunately, attempting to address both these points simultaneously seems a recipe for disaster and just results in 'feeding the troll'.

edw 15y ago

I find it depressing that your comment was down-voted by at least two people — two people who, by virtue of their karma, are supposed to somehow have an understanding of what a productive comment is and what it isn't. The response your comment has received from these Gaurdian[1]-like members of our supposed nerd virtual polis[1] is evidence that you have a point. Several weeks ago, Daring Fireball featured a link to an exchange between Ian Fleming and a man who wrote him offering suggestions (and a critique of James Bond's current) pistol selection. In a comment here at HN, I believe, someone noted the civility, the maturity of the exchange. I thought about that comment, and I decided that I was going to try to restrain myself and make comments that a hypothetical adult might make. HN is part of a problem, and that problem is what I'll call the cable news-ification of everything. No, not the Fox News-ification, but the cable news-ification, because the premise of all these channels is that when something happens, the most important thing is to have an opinion about what happened, and to broadcast and debate that opinion as vigorously as possible. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)

TeMPOraL 15y ago
"I find it depressing that your comment was down-voted by at least two people — two people who, by virtue of their karma, are supposed to somehow have an understanding of what a productive comment is and what it isn't." Am I missing something, or how can one possibly see a list of downvoters for a given comment?
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  You need at least ~500 karma to downvote.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    Thanks :). I've (mistakenly) assumed that you need to see the list of downvoters to make a statement such as edw's, whereas I now see how, having information you and edw provided, you can just infer this statement. A lesson to learn for me here :).

prodigal_erik 15y ago

When I read "X is great" while using Y, I reflexively put my choice under scrutiny. I see that as the main reason to talk about technologies X or Y at all. And if X has some terrible drawback, network effects can make it worthwhile for me to dissuade other people. Hg vs. git isn't a compelling example, but if I want to never face another svn-induced merge conflict again, I myself am actually better off if everyone I may collaborate with already knows how troublesome that tool is (I would have said "nightmarish" in the svnmerge.py days).

nasmorn 15y ago

I think it does. I for example are somewhat attached to my decision of using git and would probably dismiss someone telling me how much it sucks. On the other hand I am not a power user, it intimidates me at times. If I read a post explaining a mercurial workflow that looked easier then what I do now I might check it out. Yeah you read correctly, I didn't even install mercurial. I just moved from svn to git once rails and most gems did. I guess I am not the only one so there are people youcould convince.