6 ms·

IMO The tone of HN comments is teetering over the edge of decorum, similar to the atmosphere of Reddit prior to every new nadir of commentary there. I'm not go

IMO The tone of HN comments is teetering over the edge of decorum, similar to the atmosphere of Reddit prior to every new nadir of commentary there. I'm not going to look through rose-tinted glasses and suggest "things were better in the good ol' days". Contrarian reactions to top posts are the bread-and-butter of a healthy message board. However, to me it feels like the quality of these contrarian takes have gone down. People seem far more 'committed' to pushing their positions to incense others with overgeneralizing karma-clickbait. This causes the dialectic to become more of a debate instead of a deliberation, and to me the latter is far more useful and engaging. With that said, I also know that my tastes change as I get older, so this could truly be my own delusion.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Curiosity has its bounds. Some topics, arguably, are the equivalent of discussing the temperature and color of the fire as the house burns. I too am getting older, and while I don’t feel I’m becoming galvanized per se, I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero. If the data speaks and the counterparty opposes facts, there is no way to have a productive discussion. An example from my own experience would be when talking to someone about climate change, which they don’t believe in because “God will make sure it all works out”. There is no value in engaging in those situations, and similar anecdotes can be found here. Belief systems and mental models can be rigid.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate change.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    You proved my point! The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. There is thread after thread after thread chock full of citations on this matter. And yet you say, without the slightest hint of proof, that’s it’s a belief versus data. It’s astounding really, and these data points have helped me recalibrate my expectations of fellow humans, as well as my empathy for them.
    - soco 5y ago
      There's a big difference between "technology can save the world" and "technology saves the world". Right now we see a lot of talk and very little action so indeed, I wouldn't rely as of yet on technology either.
    - CrazyStat 5y ago
      >The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. Gonna need a link to one of those threads full of citations on this claim, because this is not at all my understanding. Even if we had a magic wand that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to zero overnight, we're already far above historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and will be paying the price. Edit: since I'm asking for citations, here's mine[1] showing that according to climate models zero CO2 emissions from 2020 onward would have little effect on the global mean temperature through 2100. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2
      - burkaman 5y ago
        It just depends on your definition of "solved". If solved means "all consequences of anthropogenic climate change avoided" then it's obviously too late, there's no solution other than time travel. If solved means "humanity survives as a species" then we're in pretty good shape no matter what we do. For most people I think solved means "we avoid the worst effects", which of course leads to another question about definitions. Many people look at the graph in your citation and see it as a picture of success, because the baseline in their mind is RCP8.5. Note that the graph makes a comparison to RCP2.6, which is not a "do nothing" scenario, it's a pretty optimistic and aspirational future.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      I'm normally simpatico with you, but I need you to help me find the data that says that this will work without cutting energy consumption in rich countries, and do that without creating a permanent underclass of poor countries forcibly held to a lower consumption rate than than those rich countries. I have yet to see a scientific case for luxury communism where every Indian peasant gets their own suburban yard. edit: and I do see a lot of people saying that technology right around the corner will just solve the problem without anyone having to change their lifestyle in the slightest.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." This then quickly and naturally devolves into authoritarian feelings, proposals, and anger. I think people who participate in such arguments fail to see how history is replete with examples of how this type of angry spirit leads to nothing but war, subjugation, and death. In other words, it's an egotistical expression that lacks historical wisdom.
    - gryfft 5y ago
      It is bad when people do bad things. It is absolutely morally reprehensible when they do those bad things knowingly in bad faith. It is terrible and exhausting to deal with those people and the people further clouding the air around the things those people do by expressing their ignorance proudly and angrily and attacking anyone whose behavior does not properly signal the same pride in the same ignorance.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      That's one of the deeper wisdoms of non-violent direct action. That the way in which one wins is as important as winning, because it shapes the people who exist after the conflict is resolved. Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained? Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people. Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    We have evidence to support technology's potential to solve certain issues. Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. It's naive to think it'll all go as planned with some needed happy surprises along the way, but comparing that to 'God will handle it' feels a little stretched.
    - cableshaft 5y ago
      > Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. "Even if the world manages to limit warming to 1.5C, some long-term impacts of warming already in train are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. These include sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Drastic reductions in emissions can stave off worse climate change, according to IPCC scientists, but will not return the world to the more moderate weather patterns of the past." "Ed Hawkins, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading, and a lead author for the IPCC, said: “We are already experiencing climate change, including more frequent and extreme weather events, and for many of these impacts there is no going back.”" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-... And actually, here's this direct from the headline statements in the IPCC report itself: "Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level." https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Headline_Statements.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        Don't misinterpret my statement to mean "we can undo all the damage already done". Also, don't misinterpret it to mean "we can prevent any further damage". When I say solutions are on the roadmap, I mean somewhere down the road we'll be able to stop doing the bad things and save ourselves.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    Except when it comes to mRNA vaccine mandates, then technology is suddenly bad.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero. That may be the difference. A few years ago, more of the contrarian takes were in good faith, with real thought behind them. You could learn something new from them, even if you didn't completely agree with them. That also meant that, when you were confronted with a contrarian take, you were more likely to expect that it was made in good faith. This led to a different feel for the whole site. Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points. They are, in CapitalistCartr's words, "a set of recordings", so they're no point trying to have a discussion. I don't know how to get back to where HN was five years ago. I can feel the difference, and I prefer the old version. #OldManYellsAtClouds, I guess...
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Seconded.
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    > Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points. This is the main thing to me. If someone disagreed with me here 15 years ago (I wish I still remembered the account, but oh well), I would have assumed that they personally saw something wrong in what I was saying and were reacting to it. Even if somebody wanted to pick a fight with me, it was because they, personally, wanted to pick a fight. (Whether with me or just the first person they disagreed with). Now, someone disagreeing is likely to be knee-jerk reacting to what I said because it tripped across some red or blue team media shibboleth and I didn't say the right things so I must be one of the 'bad people', which is then how people proceed to talk to me. There are certain words, phrases, and topics that the media have turned so completely into litmus tests that they act as triggers to bypass people's critical thinking. If you want to disagree with me, I want people disagreeing with ME, not the strawman communist or facist they've constructed in their heads.
- codeduck 5y ago
  Time becomes more valuable as we get older.
jdkjs 5y ago
I waste as little time as possible writing contrarian comments here because I know they will get flagged immediately and nobody will get to read them.
- sometimeshuman 5y ago
  This is a concern. In exploring any space we risk getting stuck at a local maximum. But this may occur when one holds on to their current ideas too strongly and immediately rejects ideas that go downhill so to speak. Flagging does seem overused on HN lately. It would be interesting to know many HN active users there have been over the years and perhaps that is the reason flagging occurs more frequently. For the record I have had various HN accounts for almost a decade and last month was the first time I was ever flagged.
- pjerem 5y ago
  In my experience, just adding politeness to a contrarian comment avoids the downvotes. I had some downvoted comments but I think it never happened when I was politely disagreeing before making my point. I think people (and I include myself) are more easily "triggerable" nowadays. I also think we can fix this by taking the habit to write like we are attacking the point and not the person. One easy way to do this is to overuse the "I" subject, even if it is to write and not just throw your facts. There is no real difference between « you are wrong because » and « I think you missed [that point] because » but the later is, automatically, more respectful.
skeeter2020 5y ago
There are a lot of dimensions changing here, so it's hard to figure out if it's the audience, the content, the comments, the environment in which HN exists or you. Probably some of each but tough to determine which is the first-order cause.
samlevine 5y ago
Posting a contrarian take can get you fired. There is little point in peaking out from whatever novel thing you're interested in and discussing it when there are people who get their fun out of ruining lives. This selects for people who post boring but inflammatory takes, and encourages heterodox thinkers who are trying to gain followings to meld their views to their audience.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Curiosity has its bounds. Some topics, arguably, are the equivalent of discussing the temperature and color of the fire as the house burns. I too am getting older, and while I don’t feel I’m becoming galvanized per se, I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero. If the data speaks and the counterparty opposes facts, there is no way to have a productive discussion. An example from my own experience would be when talking to someone about climate change, which they don’t believe in because “God will make sure it all works out”. There is no value in engaging in those situations, and similar anecdotes can be found here. Belief systems and mental models can be rigid.

cableshaft 5y ago
Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate change.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  You proved my point! The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. There is thread after thread after thread chock full of citations on this matter. And yet you say, without the slightest hint of proof, that’s it’s a belief versus data. It’s astounding really, and these data points have helped me recalibrate my expectations of fellow humans, as well as my empathy for them.
  - soco 5y ago
    There's a big difference between "technology can save the world" and "technology saves the world". Right now we see a lot of talk and very little action so indeed, I wouldn't rely as of yet on technology either.
  - CrazyStat 5y ago
    >The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. Gonna need a link to one of those threads full of citations on this claim, because this is not at all my understanding. Even if we had a magic wand that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to zero overnight, we're already far above historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and will be paying the price. Edit: since I'm asking for citations, here's mine[1] showing that according to climate models zero CO2 emissions from 2020 onward would have little effect on the global mean temperature through 2100. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2
    - burkaman 5y ago
      It just depends on your definition of "solved". If solved means "all consequences of anthropogenic climate change avoided" then it's obviously too late, there's no solution other than time travel. If solved means "humanity survives as a species" then we're in pretty good shape no matter what we do. For most people I think solved means "we avoid the worst effects", which of course leads to another question about definitions. Many people look at the graph in your citation and see it as a picture of success, because the baseline in their mind is RCP8.5. Note that the graph makes a comparison to RCP2.6, which is not a "do nothing" scenario, it's a pretty optimistic and aspirational future.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    I'm normally simpatico with you, but I need you to help me find the data that says that this will work without cutting energy consumption in rich countries, and do that without creating a permanent underclass of poor countries forcibly held to a lower consumption rate than than those rich countries. I have yet to see a scientific case for luxury communism where every Indian peasant gets their own suburban yard. edit: and I do see a lot of people saying that technology right around the corner will just solve the problem without anyone having to change their lifestyle in the slightest.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." This then quickly and naturally devolves into authoritarian feelings, proposals, and anger. I think people who participate in such arguments fail to see how history is replete with examples of how this type of angry spirit leads to nothing but war, subjugation, and death. In other words, it's an egotistical expression that lacks historical wisdom.
  - gryfft 5y ago
    It is bad when people do bad things. It is absolutely morally reprehensible when they do those bad things knowingly in bad faith. It is terrible and exhausting to deal with those people and the people further clouding the air around the things those people do by expressing their ignorance proudly and angrily and attacking anyone whose behavior does not properly signal the same pride in the same ignorance.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    That's one of the deeper wisdoms of non-violent direct action. That the way in which one wins is as important as winning, because it shapes the people who exist after the conflict is resolved. Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained? Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people. Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  We have evidence to support technology's potential to solve certain issues. Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. It's naive to think it'll all go as planned with some needed happy surprises along the way, but comparing that to 'God will handle it' feels a little stretched.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    > Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. "Even if the world manages to limit warming to 1.5C, some long-term impacts of warming already in train are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. These include sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Drastic reductions in emissions can stave off worse climate change, according to IPCC scientists, but will not return the world to the more moderate weather patterns of the past." "Ed Hawkins, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading, and a lead author for the IPCC, said: “We are already experiencing climate change, including more frequent and extreme weather events, and for many of these impacts there is no going back.”" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-... And actually, here's this direct from the headline statements in the IPCC report itself: "Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level." https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Headline_Statements.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      Don't misinterpret my statement to mean "we can undo all the damage already done". Also, don't misinterpret it to mean "we can prevent any further damage". When I say solutions are on the roadmap, I mean somewhere down the road we'll be able to stop doing the bad things and save ourselves.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Except when it comes to mRNA vaccine mandates, then technology is suddenly bad.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero. That may be the difference. A few years ago, more of the contrarian takes were in good faith, with real thought behind them. You could learn something new from them, even if you didn't completely agree with them. That also meant that, when you were confronted with a contrarian take, you were more likely to expect that it was made in good faith. This led to a different feel for the whole site. Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points. They are, in CapitalistCartr's words, "a set of recordings", so they're no point trying to have a discussion. I don't know how to get back to where HN was five years ago. I can feel the difference, and I prefer the old version. #OldManYellsAtClouds, I guess...
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Seconded.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  > Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points. This is the main thing to me. If someone disagreed with me here 15 years ago (I wish I still remembered the account, but oh well), I would have assumed that they personally saw something wrong in what I was saying and were reacting to it. Even if somebody wanted to pick a fight with me, it was because they, personally, wanted to pick a fight. (Whether with me or just the first person they disagreed with). Now, someone disagreeing is likely to be knee-jerk reacting to what I said because it tripped across some red or blue team media shibboleth and I didn't say the right things so I must be one of the 'bad people', which is then how people proceed to talk to me. There are certain words, phrases, and topics that the media have turned so completely into litmus tests that they act as triggers to bypass people's critical thinking. If you want to disagree with me, I want people disagreeing with ME, not the strawman communist or facist they've constructed in their heads.
codeduck 5y ago
Time becomes more valuable as we get older.

jdkjs 5y ago

I waste as little time as possible writing contrarian comments here because I know they will get flagged immediately and nobody will get to read them.

sometimeshuman 5y ago
This is a concern. In exploring any space we risk getting stuck at a local maximum. But this may occur when one holds on to their current ideas too strongly and immediately rejects ideas that go downhill so to speak. Flagging does seem overused on HN lately. It would be interesting to know many HN active users there have been over the years and perhaps that is the reason flagging occurs more frequently. For the record I have had various HN accounts for almost a decade and last month was the first time I was ever flagged.
pjerem 5y ago
In my experience, just adding politeness to a contrarian comment avoids the downvotes. I had some downvoted comments but I think it never happened when I was politely disagreeing before making my point. I think people (and I include myself) are more easily "triggerable" nowadays. I also think we can fix this by taking the habit to write like we are attacking the point and not the person. One easy way to do this is to overuse the "I" subject, even if it is to write and not just throw your facts. There is no real difference between « you are wrong because » and « I think you missed [that point] because » but the later is, automatically, more respectful.

skeeter2020 5y ago

There are a lot of dimensions changing here, so it's hard to figure out if it's the audience, the content, the comments, the environment in which HN exists or you. Probably some of each but tough to determine which is the first-order cause.

samlevine 5y ago

Posting a contrarian take can get you fired. There is little point in peaking out from whatever novel thing you're interested in and discussing it when there are people who get their fun out of ruining lives. This selects for people who post boring but inflammatory takes, and encourages heterodox thinkers who are trying to gain followings to meld their views to their audience.