9 ms·

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to call you out personally, but this is itching my brain something fierce so I have to blurt it out, and hey, it's the internet. A li

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to call you out personally, but this is itching my brain something fierce so I have to blurt it out, and hey, it's the internet. A little derailing never hurt anyone. It's amazing to me how universal the "I used to be a non-believer" line is in evangelism. From the classic "I used to be an atheist but I've been born again" to all the members of political party A claiming to have been a member of party B before seeing the light to technological evangelism. It just jumps out at you after awhile.

throwaway98700k 5y ago
It’s a dangerous attitude because it has a paternal edge to it. Any “enlightenment” naturally leads to seeing others as unenlightened.
- nyolfen 5y ago
  it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Yes, to say that you have changed your mind about something as if that carries any particular weight in favour of that something is "dangerous" to the recipients of your message, as it's an underhanded debating tactic designed to persuade them of something that has no actual persuasive arguments in its favour.
    - nyolfen 5y ago
      can you point to where in the comment OP indicates that his opinion carries 'danger' for the audience? the comment is literally "i used to think this was irredeemable as well, however my personal opinion has shifted, caveated by the fact that i still agree that there are tons of scams and a crash coming"
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. For one thing, nobody else has "literally" said that; your comment is the only one Algolia can find with those exact words. For another, I can't quite see what's not to get; what is it you're not understanding? saalweachter pointed out that "[i]t's amazing to [them] how universal the 'I used to be a non-believer' line is in evangelism" (Further expounded upon in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29948754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29948754 ); throwaway98700k simplified to "[i]t’s a dangerous attitude because it has a paternal edge to it"; you asked whether it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something; and I tried to explain that yes, it is, and why. (You might notice that my reply, like your question, was couched in quite general terms: The danger of "conversion" claims in general, without reference to any particular "OP" in this thread.) But, to explain it again: No, of course OP doesn't indicate that their own opinion carries danger for the audience. (Would you?) That is precisely the danger, that "OP" (assuming you mean poof131) didn't acknowledge that their "conversion" isn't an argument in favour of "conversion", while still mentioning it as if it had something to do with anything (which, as saalweachter explained, tends to carry convincing weight in people's minds even though it logically shouldn't). Sorry, I don't know how to explain it better. Except, perhaps -- did you think this discussion is about whether the "conversion" claim would be "dangerous" to OP himself? That's not it. The danger is that conversion claims tend to persuade people more than they should; the danger of people getting duped into believing things that aren't true just because someone successfully (maybe even unconsciously) uses a rhetorical tactic. AFAIK, I never claimed OP themselves indicates that their opinion carries danger. That's precisley why I agreed with the posters who did it for them, and spelled it out to you in my GP. Is there anything else in that, that you still don't understand? Besides your misapprehension that I claimed "OP" had said that, I mean (or possibly that the danger mentioned would be to not to "OP" but to the audience)? Which I sincerely hope is (are) thoroughly dispelled by now.
mattdesl 5y ago
it goes both ways – "I used to be religious, now I am an atheist" (I was also against crypto/blockchains when I first learned about them last year)
- mrelectric 5y ago
  As usual, truth is somewhere in the middle.
  - samhw 5y ago
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Quite often, it isn't.
- antifa 5y ago
  It really doesn't go both ways. It's "I didn't find any evidence for God, so I stopped believing." vs "I believe God is real but I can't prove it". When somebody is telling me they think God is real, they're trying to sell me something, or they think it's important to tell me. When I tell people I'm an atheist, I probably didn't want to have to tell anyone, and I genuinely don't care what you believe unless you're using it to hurt others.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    it’s all relative, depends on your vantage point. just look at the OP thread that led to these discussions: the author is vocally decrying blockchains. if you view anti-crypto as the atheists in this analogy then they sure do make a lot of noise on HN (these kinds of posts routinely make the front page).
    - antifa 5y ago
      > they sure do make a lot of noise What, you mean like randomly, unprompted? For no reason? What are they trying to sell you?
edem 5y ago
mahogany 5y ago
Alternatively, what if they simply learned something new which caused them to change their belief in something? It's better to focus on what caused their mind to be changed (it may or may not be bunk) versus focusing on the fact that their mind changed at all (which can certainly be a good thing).
- antifa 5y ago
  > what if they simply learned something new which caused them to change their belief in something? Then they would have shared that, instead what we got was indistinguishable from "some charismatic people dupped me and/or I'm in on the scamming now."
mw888 5y ago
That’s a nice little Kafka trap you’ve constructed to disregard the people who change their minds away from what you think. So every time someone changes their mind and uses their previous opinion as informative you are going to non-committally imply it’s “evangelism?”
- z3c0 5y ago
  Seems like a reworking of the "everybody has an agenda" retort you see so often these days. It's a slippery slope that only leads to dying a curmudgeon, as all chances for new perspectives were rebuked as agendas/evangelism/propagandist/etc.
  - antifa 5y ago
    Or, it's a slippery slope that only leads to keeping all your BTC/ETH and missing out on what getting scammed 20 times a year feels like.
    - z3c0 5y ago
      Strange, I've managed to do all of that without being needlessly cynical.
      - antifa 5y ago
        99% of random new cryptos have been scams or useless, so if anything the user was too generous with their politeness.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Me too: I'm only cynical because it is needed.
- hooande 5y ago
  stating that you used to be a non believer isn't necessary. he could have made all those points about blockchain without that piece of information. the GP's point is that the decision to add it is worthy of suspicion
tomxor 5y ago
The parent's perspective does not come across as an evangelist's though. Quite the opposite. It's balanced, seeing the hype for hype, seeing the flaws, and yet seeing that there is still some truth and potential buried in there. The world is grey.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > seeing the flaws, The article names none. > yet seeing that there is still some truth and potential buried in there. The article details none. > The world is grey. "Everything is true, even false things!"
  - tomxor 5y ago
    I'm commenting on the parent comment, not the article...
- floodyberry- 5y ago
  There was no substantial justification given for changing their opinion. IF it was an honest post, it was entirely unconvincing
  - tomxor 5y ago
    > But more recently after learning from and interacting with people building in the space my assessment changed.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Yeah, exactly: That's not a reasoned or reasonable justification.

throwaway98700k 5y ago

It’s a dangerous attitude because it has a paternal edge to it. Any “enlightenment” naturally leads to seeing others as unenlightened.

nyolfen 5y ago
it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something?
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Yes, to say that you have changed your mind about something as if that carries any particular weight in favour of that something is "dangerous" to the recipients of your message, as it's an underhanded debating tactic designed to persuade them of something that has no actual persuasive arguments in its favour.
  - nyolfen 5y ago
    can you point to where in the comment OP indicates that his opinion carries 'danger' for the audience? the comment is literally "i used to think this was irredeemable as well, however my personal opinion has shifted, caveated by the fact that i still agree that there are tons of scams and a crash coming"
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. For one thing, nobody else has "literally" said that; your comment is the only one Algolia can find with those exact words. For another, I can't quite see what's not to get; what is it you're not understanding? saalweachter pointed out that "[i]t's amazing to [them] how universal the 'I used to be a non-believer' line is in evangelism" (Further expounded upon in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29948754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29948754 ); throwaway98700k simplified to "[i]t’s a dangerous attitude because it has a paternal edge to it"; you asked whether it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something; and I tried to explain that yes, it is, and why. (You might notice that my reply, like your question, was couched in quite general terms: The danger of "conversion" claims in general, without reference to any particular "OP" in this thread.) But, to explain it again: No, of course OP doesn't indicate that their own opinion carries danger for the audience. (Would you?) That is precisely the danger, that "OP" (assuming you mean poof131) didn't acknowledge that their "conversion" isn't an argument in favour of "conversion", while still mentioning it as if it had something to do with anything (which, as saalweachter explained, tends to carry convincing weight in people's minds even though it logically shouldn't). Sorry, I don't know how to explain it better. Except, perhaps -- did you think this discussion is about whether the "conversion" claim would be "dangerous" to OP himself? That's not it. The danger is that conversion claims tend to persuade people more than they should; the danger of people getting duped into believing things that aren't true just because someone successfully (maybe even unconsciously) uses a rhetorical tactic. AFAIK, I never claimed OP themselves indicates that their opinion carries danger. That's precisley why I agreed with the posters who did it for them, and spelled it out to you in my GP. Is there anything else in that, that you still don't understand? Besides your misapprehension that I claimed "OP" had said that, I mean (or possibly that the danger mentioned would be to not to "OP" but to the audience)? Which I sincerely hope is (are) thoroughly dispelled by now.

mattdesl 5y ago

it goes both ways – "I used to be religious, now I am an atheist" (I was also against crypto/blockchains when I first learned about them last year)

mrelectric 5y ago
As usual, truth is somewhere in the middle.
- samhw 5y ago
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Quite often, it isn't.
antifa 5y ago
It really doesn't go both ways. It's "I didn't find any evidence for God, so I stopped believing." vs "I believe God is real but I can't prove it". When somebody is telling me they think God is real, they're trying to sell me something, or they think it's important to tell me. When I tell people I'm an atheist, I probably didn't want to have to tell anyone, and I genuinely don't care what you believe unless you're using it to hurt others.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  it’s all relative, depends on your vantage point. just look at the OP thread that led to these discussions: the author is vocally decrying blockchains. if you view anti-crypto as the atheists in this analogy then they sure do make a lot of noise on HN (these kinds of posts routinely make the front page).
  - antifa 5y ago
    > they sure do make a lot of noise What, you mean like randomly, unprompted? For no reason? What are they trying to sell you?

edem 5y ago

mahogany 5y ago

Alternatively, what if they simply learned something new which caused them to change their belief in something? It's better to focus on what caused their mind to be changed (it may or may not be bunk) versus focusing on the fact that their mind changed at all (which can certainly be a good thing).

antifa 5y ago
> what if they simply learned something new which caused them to change their belief in something? Then they would have shared that, instead what we got was indistinguishable from "some charismatic people dupped me and/or I'm in on the scamming now."

mw888 5y ago

That’s a nice little Kafka trap you’ve constructed to disregard the people who change their minds away from what you think. So every time someone changes their mind and uses their previous opinion as informative you are going to non-committally imply it’s “evangelism?”

z3c0 5y ago
Seems like a reworking of the "everybody has an agenda" retort you see so often these days. It's a slippery slope that only leads to dying a curmudgeon, as all chances for new perspectives were rebuked as agendas/evangelism/propagandist/etc.
- antifa 5y ago
  Or, it's a slippery slope that only leads to keeping all your BTC/ETH and missing out on what getting scammed 20 times a year feels like.
  - z3c0 5y ago
    Strange, I've managed to do all of that without being needlessly cynical.
    - antifa 5y ago
      99% of random new cryptos have been scams or useless, so if anything the user was too generous with their politeness.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Me too: I'm only cynical because it is needed.
hooande 5y ago
stating that you used to be a non believer isn't necessary. he could have made all those points about blockchain without that piece of information. the GP's point is that the decision to add it is worthy of suspicion

tomxor 5y ago

The parent's perspective does not come across as an evangelist's though. Quite the opposite. It's balanced, seeing the hype for hype, seeing the flaws, and yet seeing that there is still some truth and potential buried in there. The world is grey.

TomSwirly 5y ago
> seeing the flaws, The article names none. > yet seeing that there is still some truth and potential buried in there. The article details none. > The world is grey. "Everything is true, even false things!"
- tomxor 5y ago
  I'm commenting on the parent comment, not the article...
floodyberry- 5y ago
There was no substantial justification given for changing their opinion. IF it was an honest post, it was entirely unconvincing
- tomxor 5y ago
  > But more recently after learning from and interacting with people building in the space my assessment changed.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Yeah, exactly: That's not a reasoned or reasonable justification.