4 ms·

Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?

by Kye 5y ago

Robin_Message 5y ago
It's you. (Or maybe I missed the <satire> tags on your comment.)
- Kye 5y ago
  In keeping with HN guidelines, I read their comment in the most fair way I could and assumed they weren't one of those "apolitical types" who's oblivious to the politics around them unless someone points it out and sneers at people who do. I come here because even at its worst, HN is usually capable of hosting conversations that would otherwise devolve to accusations and namecalling between people who could have a conversation without accusations and namecalling. This subthread is an example of HN at its worst. Not one of the four people who replied are the person I actually asked, and only one of you tried to make a good comment. (not you)
durovo 5y ago
"Can you explain what you mean by 'political type' to make sure everyone's on the same page?" might have been more appropriate here :P
- Kye 5y ago
  Their definition would be an explanation of what they mean.
totetsu 5y ago
http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
genewitch 5y ago
I'm not going to workshop definitions with you right now.
JeremyNT 5y ago
> Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page? I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded). This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."
- Kye 5y ago
  That seems to set up every conversation to fail as people assume past each other rather than double check their interpretation. Good example: the other repliers who assumed ill intent.
  - JeremyNT 5y ago
    Well, I think it's incontrovertible that some people will engage in bad faith conversations with the intent to only further their own agendas. Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly. What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it." [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558

Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?

by Kye 5y ago

Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?

Robin_Message 5y ago

It's you. (Or maybe I missed the <satire> tags on your comment.)

Kye 5y ago
In keeping with HN guidelines, I read their comment in the most fair way I could and assumed they weren't one of those "apolitical types" who's oblivious to the politics around them unless someone points it out and sneers at people who do. I come here because even at its worst, HN is usually capable of hosting conversations that would otherwise devolve to accusations and namecalling between people who could have a conversation without accusations and namecalling. This subthread is an example of HN at its worst. Not one of the four people who replied are the person I actually asked, and only one of you tried to make a good comment. (not you)

durovo 5y ago

"Can you explain what you mean by 'political type' to make sure everyone's on the same page?" might have been more appropriate here :P

Kye 5y ago
Their definition would be an explanation of what they mean.

totetsu 5y ago

http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/

genewitch 5y ago

I'm not going to workshop definitions with you right now.

JeremyNT 5y ago

> Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page? I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded). This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."

Kye 5y ago
That seems to set up every conversation to fail as people assume past each other rather than double check their interpretation. Good example: the other repliers who assumed ill intent.
- JeremyNT 5y ago
  Well, I think it's incontrovertible that some people will engage in bad faith conversations with the intent to only further their own agendas. Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly. What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it." [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558