5 ms·

This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. P

This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." This extends to other places, too. On a more practical level, not being kind doesn't buy you anything. (I want to be clear here that "kindness" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them - it achieves nothing)

eru 5y ago
To be honest, some people get an emotional satisfaction out of being unkind. As a matter of practical strategy, being kind is better for all the reasons you suggest. See also Slate Star Codex, eg https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c... or https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until-you-can-coordinate-meanness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Basic civility, respect and decorum go a lot further than mere "kindness" IME. The latter I can't even properly define in the context of a computer-mediated debate. I suppose it's largely a way of saying "don't personally attack other users, or you'll get booted" which ought to be plain common sense.
  - panta 5y ago
    As I see it, being kind means being empathetic, asking ourselves how the other person is going to feel when receiving our communication, and therefore adjusting in a way to avoid emotional damage. I believe this is especially important when being critical. The goal of a criticism should be to help the other/the community/the discourse grow, keeping our ego out of the equation.
    - microjim 5y ago
      Agree. Expanding on ‘emotional damage’ - I’d say principally this would be softening the blow by not putting someone’s sense of who they are/sense of worth under threat. Failing that, you get one of two counterproductive effects: a) They feel a compulsive need to deny the threat and defend against it, doing something dumb or unwarranted as a result. b) They lose that sense of worth, and become impotent. Recovery from this depends on their environment and ability to build themselves back up. That said, if you’re too ‘nice’, there’s a chance you’re being too subtle and the message doesn’t get through.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Oh, I agree for sure that we shouldn't taunt or bait other users, in ways that would hurt them emotionally and tempt them to attack in turn. That's just as bad as an overt attack - it destroys the spirit of a robust debate. But this all falls under a proper understanding of respect and decorum, at least as far as I'm concerned. These words just feel more precise and accurate when referencing these things. Which helps making the norm stick.
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
    - eru 5y ago
      Interesting. The author of that piece isn't exactly know for producing what's commonly understood as kind communication himself.
      - throwaway81523 5y ago
        All the more reason for the self reflection that went into that document ;-). I think these days, he pretty much follows it, at least in written communications. In person he used to get upset easily, which could lead to unkindness. I don't know if he is still like that, N years later.
        eru 5y ago
        Yes. And in any case: even a hypocrite could give good advice some times.
        throwaway81523 5y ago
        That isn't nice. Not always succeeding at something is different than saying others should do it but you don't have to.
        eru 5y ago
        Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the author was a hypocrite. I just meant, even if he was a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily undermine the text. A world class coach doesn't have to be a world class athlete. Or someone not practicing what they preach doesn't necessarily invalidate what they preach.
pdonis 5y ago
> This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. I am not talking about internet forum discussions in which the default assumption is that all participants are having the discussion in good faith. I am talking about what the response should be to a scientist who wilfully violates the norms that are required of all science if science is to be reliable and trustworthy. The closest analogy in the context of an internet forum would be how a forum moderator should deal with a participant who wilfully violates the norms that are required to have a useful, good faith discussion. We normally call these people "trolls", and for ordinary participants the best thing to do is usually to ignore them, but a moderator has to maintain the forum's signal to noise ratio, which at some point is going to mean shutting the troll down, and doing it visibly and publicly, so that the norms of the forum can be seen to be enforced. Kindness would not be appropriate in that situation either (although since the situation is not as serious as a scientist wilfully violating the norms of science, one would not expect the response to be as vehement either). > Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them Publicly enforcing norms that are required for an institution to function, and making it explicit that that is what you are doing, in language that reflects the seriousness of the violation, is not "being a jerk". Granted, it's also not being kind. But "kind" and "jerk" are not the only available options.

eru 5y ago

To be honest, some people get an emotional satisfaction out of being unkind. As a matter of practical strategy, being kind is better for all the reasons you suggest. See also Slate Star Codex, eg https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c... or https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until-you-can-coordinate-meanness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until...

zozbot234 5y ago
Basic civility, respect and decorum go a lot further than mere "kindness" IME. The latter I can't even properly define in the context of a computer-mediated debate. I suppose it's largely a way of saying "don't personally attack other users, or you'll get booted" which ought to be plain common sense.
- panta 5y ago
  As I see it, being kind means being empathetic, asking ourselves how the other person is going to feel when receiving our communication, and therefore adjusting in a way to avoid emotional damage. I believe this is especially important when being critical. The goal of a criticism should be to help the other/the community/the discourse grow, keeping our ego out of the equation.
  - microjim 5y ago
    Agree. Expanding on ‘emotional damage’ - I’d say principally this would be softening the blow by not putting someone’s sense of who they are/sense of worth under threat. Failing that, you get one of two counterproductive effects: a) They feel a compulsive need to deny the threat and defend against it, doing something dumb or unwarranted as a result. b) They lose that sense of worth, and become impotent. Recovery from this depends on their environment and ability to build themselves back up. That said, if you’re too ‘nice’, there’s a chance you’re being too subtle and the message doesn’t get through.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Oh, I agree for sure that we shouldn't taunt or bait other users, in ways that would hurt them emotionally and tempt them to attack in turn. That's just as bad as an overt attack - it destroys the spirit of a robust debate. But this all falls under a proper understanding of respect and decorum, at least as far as I'm concerned. These words just feel more precise and accurate when referencing these things. Which helps making the norm stick.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
  - eru 5y ago
    Interesting. The author of that piece isn't exactly know for producing what's commonly understood as kind communication himself.
    - throwaway81523 5y ago
      All the more reason for the self reflection that went into that document ;-). I think these days, he pretty much follows it, at least in written communications. In person he used to get upset easily, which could lead to unkindness. I don't know if he is still like that, N years later.
      - eru 5y ago
        Yes. And in any case: even a hypocrite could give good advice some times.
        throwaway81523 5y ago
        That isn't nice. Not always succeeding at something is different than saying others should do it but you don't have to.
        eru 5y ago
        Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the author was a hypocrite. I just meant, even if he was a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily undermine the text. A world class coach doesn't have to be a world class athlete. Or someone not practicing what they preach doesn't necessarily invalidate what they preach.

pdonis 5y ago

> This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. I am not talking about internet forum discussions in which the default assumption is that all participants are having the discussion in good faith. I am talking about what the response should be to a scientist who wilfully violates the norms that are required of all science if science is to be reliable and trustworthy. The closest analogy in the context of an internet forum would be how a forum moderator should deal with a participant who wilfully violates the norms that are required to have a useful, good faith discussion. We normally call these people "trolls", and for ordinary participants the best thing to do is usually to ignore them, but a moderator has to maintain the forum's signal to noise ratio, which at some point is going to mean shutting the troll down, and doing it visibly and publicly, so that the norms of the forum can be seen to be enforced. Kindness would not be appropriate in that situation either (although since the situation is not as serious as a scientist wilfully violating the norms of science, one would not expect the response to be as vehement either). > Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them Publicly enforcing norms that are required for an institution to function, and making it explicit that that is what you are doing, in language that reflects the seriousness of the violation, is not "being a jerk". Granted, it's also not being kind. But "kind" and "jerk" are not the only available options.