6 ms·

> "These are typical, HN-esque responses that may get upvotes online, but they hurt personal relationships." As a regular, I disagree completely. Comments that

by soneca 5y ago

> "These are typical, HN-esque responses that may get upvotes online, but they hurt personal relationships." As a regular, I disagree completely. Comments that point out that something is wrong and have the empathy to try to help and identify a solution are much more upvoted that cynical ones that just point out that something is wrong without much caring for the other part. If you dig up HN only paying attention to potentially toxic comments, you will find them. It doesn't make HN toxic. If you create the habit of reading yesterday's posts, giving them enough time for the best comments to be upvoted and settle at the top, you will see much much less toxicity. It seems to me that the author is trying to get away from a certain behavior and, in the process, everywhere they look they just fit what they see in that exact behavior. Like when Woody Woodpecker is hungry.

nosianu 5y ago
> If you dig up HN only paying attention to potentially toxic comments (and the entire comment really, to the and including and especially the last sentence) Uhm... this is the kind of response the blog post was talking about. Kind of funny, your comment, only that it isn't.
- joemi 5y ago
  Disagreeing doesn't make something toxic.
  - hitekker 5y ago
    If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone.
    - fivea 5y ago
      > If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone. Pointing factually and patently wrong assertions is not a personal attack nor being toxic. A comment or article does not have first-move advantage for making false claims free from negative opinions or corrections. If you make a blatantly false claim and you're called on it then that's the Hallmark of a healthy community having healthy discussions.
- soneca 5y ago
  Do you think my comment was toxic? Edit: if so, is there any edit you would suggest that I could explain my disagreement without being toxic?
  - jklinger410 5y ago
    > As a regular, I disagree completely. Well first, you took a well-meaning article discussing how HN can be toxic. Kind of a non-debatable thing, and you debated it. You started with "disagree completely" and I know you are COMPLETELY aware that emphasizing the completeness of your disagreement is argumentative. While I don't think your comment is TOXIC I do think it suffers from the unkind, know-it-all argumentative mentality that HN has. So as a whole, it does contribute to the toxic nature of HN. You are basically accusing the author of "only reading the toxic parts" without you knowing whether or not they did that actually. You just assume that's what they did. Which is called a "bad faith" argument.
    - soneca 5y ago
      I meant to say that I disagree completely with the specific part that I quoted above. That those comments are upvoted. And I explain my view right after to show that I have a diametrically opposite view on that affirmation. And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact, for which we don’t have the data to settle the debate, so it’s up for debate, and my interpretation is different. Later I do go on to speculate a reason why the author had such perspective. Which is just speculation on my part (that’s why I used “It seems to me”). I might be wrong in my speculation, but I don’t this is “bad faith”.
      - tsuujin 5y ago
        I don’t want to get drawn into a negativity thing here, but I think this is important: > And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact You’re describing an opinion here. Your interpretation is your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it and I think discussion is healthy, but I also think it’s dangerous to conflate your opinion (interpretation) of a fact as the fact itself.
akshayverma99 5y ago
- Drblessing 5y ago
  broo I can't tell if this is a meta joke or this guy is serious

by soneca 5y ago

nosianu 5y ago

> If you dig up HN only paying attention to potentially toxic comments (and the entire comment really, to the and including and especially the last sentence) Uhm... this is the kind of response the blog post was talking about. Kind of funny, your comment, only that it isn't.

joemi 5y ago
Disagreeing doesn't make something toxic.
- hitekker 5y ago
  If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone. Pointing factually and patently wrong assertions is not a personal attack nor being toxic. A comment or article does not have first-move advantage for making false claims free from negative opinions or corrections. If you make a blatantly false claim and you're called on it then that's the Hallmark of a healthy community having healthy discussions.
soneca 5y ago
Do you think my comment was toxic? Edit: if so, is there any edit you would suggest that I could explain my disagreement without being toxic?
- jklinger410 5y ago
  > As a regular, I disagree completely. Well first, you took a well-meaning article discussing how HN can be toxic. Kind of a non-debatable thing, and you debated it. You started with "disagree completely" and I know you are COMPLETELY aware that emphasizing the completeness of your disagreement is argumentative. While I don't think your comment is TOXIC I do think it suffers from the unkind, know-it-all argumentative mentality that HN has. So as a whole, it does contribute to the toxic nature of HN. You are basically accusing the author of "only reading the toxic parts" without you knowing whether or not they did that actually. You just assume that's what they did. Which is called a "bad faith" argument.
  - soneca 5y ago
    I meant to say that I disagree completely with the specific part that I quoted above. That those comments are upvoted. And I explain my view right after to show that I have a diametrically opposite view on that affirmation. And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact, for which we don’t have the data to settle the debate, so it’s up for debate, and my interpretation is different. Later I do go on to speculate a reason why the author had such perspective. Which is just speculation on my part (that’s why I used “It seems to me”). I might be wrong in my speculation, but I don’t this is “bad faith”.
    - tsuujin 5y ago
      I don’t want to get drawn into a negativity thing here, but I think this is important: > And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact You’re describing an opinion here. Your interpretation is your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it and I think discussion is healthy, but I also think it’s dangerous to conflate your opinion (interpretation) of a fact as the fact itself.

akshayverma99 5y ago

Drblessing 5y ago
broo I can't tell if this is a meta joke or this guy is serious