5 ms·

> edit: -4 in 7 minutes, anyone have tips on exactly how you are allowed to discuss any of this without wholesale accepting it? It is against the rules to comp

> edit: -4 in 7 minutes, anyone have tips on exactly how you are allowed to discuss any of this without wholesale accepting it? It is against the rules to complain about downvotes. Someone else disagreed without receiving similar downvotes. Your downvotes are probably because of statements like "and refusing to accept any downplaying of it". It's not that I would refuse to accept any downplaying, just that I don't find the ones offered to be persuasive. If you focus on attacking the argument at hand, rather than on the mental state or character of those you are arguing with, you will have more success.

refulgentis 5y ago
it's not against the rules to complain about downvotes, common misconception! I know you didn't know and this isn't a commentary, or question of, or related to, your mental state or character. I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character. Reproduced here, I can't find anything, I'm trying really hard: It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos I recognize that the edits include the factor you mention, those edits occurred enough after an unusually high number of downvotes, and the scored has rebounded since. Note this has nothing to do with anyone else's mental state or character, nor questioning it, or in anyway intended to relate to it.
- lliamander 5y ago
  Let me quote[0]: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. As to your question: > I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character. For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence). In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided. Now, we all have to model the beliefs and intentions of others, but we are often a lot worse at it than we think, and even more so in online communication. Therefore it is best to avoid such "mind reading" language. Of course, I am making assumptions about the intentions of the WEF! But I'm careful to separate what they actually said from what I infer about their intentions. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. What part of that says its "against the rules", as claimed? > For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence). Sounds right. > In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided. What would Scott Adams say about you recasting any questioning as downplaying, then invoking a general statement from him in service of furthering recasting questioning as "mind reading", then self-assuredly letting me know that you're being frank, not glib, when you tell me I don't know what you'll accept. All of this, btw, not responding to the question you claim you're answering, quoted as if you were answering, and now you've burdened with further broad claims about _my_ state of mind and what you believe I _think_ I'm arguing Give me some rope here, let me redirect: you're claiming that the set of following words, bounded by " marks: "It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos" contains: - questioning a person's mental state (as in beliefs, intetions) - questioning a person's character - a statement that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement - mind reading Unfortunately, giving you charity here also reads as mind-reading under the extremely broad definition you've given it, so forgive me if what I perceive as normal conversational banter is yet another violation of the rules I missed: I believe you got in over your skis and tried to rope in a discussion of your readings of Scott Adams and what you think he said as an answer to "what's the best way to talk about this so I don't get downvoted?", and you've unintentionally tripled down on explaining that the downvotes are a result of the edit that came after the downvotes. EDIT: Lordy I didn't realize you were the original person I replied to. You haven't engaged with a single comment I've made in this thread, just meta-explained why you don't need to engage with anything ever. Scott would have your head on a platter for invoking him in defense of this post-modern argumentation style

refulgentis 5y ago

it's not against the rules to complain about downvotes, common misconception! I know you didn't know and this isn't a commentary, or question of, or related to, your mental state or character. I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character. Reproduced here, I can't find anything, I'm trying really hard: It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos I recognize that the edits include the factor you mention, those edits occurred enough after an unusually high number of downvotes, and the scored has rebounded since. Note this has nothing to do with anyone else's mental state or character, nor questioning it, or in anyway intended to relate to it.

lliamander 5y ago
Let me quote[0]: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. As to your question: > I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character. For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence). In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided. Now, we all have to model the beliefs and intentions of others, but we are often a lot worse at it than we think, and even more so in online communication. Therefore it is best to avoid such "mind reading" language. Of course, I am making assumptions about the intentions of the WEF! But I'm careful to separate what they actually said from what I infer about their intentions. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- refulgentis 5y ago
  > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. What part of that says its "against the rules", as claimed? > For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence). Sounds right. > In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided. What would Scott Adams say about you recasting any questioning as downplaying, then invoking a general statement from him in service of furthering recasting questioning as "mind reading", then self-assuredly letting me know that you're being frank, not glib, when you tell me I don't know what you'll accept. All of this, btw, not responding to the question you claim you're answering, quoted as if you were answering, and now you've burdened with further broad claims about _my_ state of mind and what you believe I _think_ I'm arguing Give me some rope here, let me redirect: you're claiming that the set of following words, bounded by " marks: "It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos" contains: - questioning a person's mental state (as in beliefs, intetions) - questioning a person's character - a statement that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement - mind reading Unfortunately, giving you charity here also reads as mind-reading under the extremely broad definition you've given it, so forgive me if what I perceive as normal conversational banter is yet another violation of the rules I missed: I believe you got in over your skis and tried to rope in a discussion of your readings of Scott Adams and what you think he said as an answer to "what's the best way to talk about this so I don't get downvoted?", and you've unintentionally tripled down on explaining that the downvotes are a result of the edit that came after the downvotes. EDIT: Lordy I didn't realize you were the original person I replied to. You haven't engaged with a single comment I've made in this thread, just meta-explained why you don't need to engage with anything ever. Scott would have your head on a platter for invoking him in defense of this post-modern argumentation style