5 ms·

I found that even trying to discuss this case like reasonable human beings immediately attracts downvotes, be it here or on Reddit - it's like "how dare you eve

I found that even trying to discuss this case like reasonable human beings immediately attracts downvotes, be it here or on Reddit - it's like "how dare you even question this! Of course McDonald's was in the wrong and even asking 'why' is a violation of some kind" Edit: case in point - this comment is currently in negative and I literally have no idea why, I've been commenting on this site for almost 10 years and this is one topic that is always guaranteed to attract downvotes no matter the context.

blowski 5y ago
I don’t think the OP is discussing in good faith. They’re projecting a rather tangential opinion disguised as an innocent question. Their opinion is then being undermined by facts, thus they are being downvoted, and complaining about the downvotes. There’s a lot of behaviour there that goes against the guidelines of most forums.
- paulmd 5y ago
  This tactic is called "sealioning", named after this comic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ HN's rules around faux-politeness make it extremely susceptible to this kind of attack: not everyone is actually acting in good-faith and it makes discussions extremely tedious dealing with sealions who exploit that to drag the discussions of interest to a halt while the bad-faith user demands that we engage in a lengthy discussion of basic underlying points to keep from engaging the actual topic of discussion. Oh, but if you say it then you're the bad guy, because we have this rule! Again, why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment? Literally the only connection is they're both lawsuits. There's been a ton of words written about something that is entirely off-topic, because of this sealioning from the parent. That is textbook, open-and-shut, exactly what this tactic is designed to do.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > HN's rules around faux-politeness make it extremely susceptible to this kind of attack Not if people downvote rather than responding to nonproductive contributions. The problem isn't the rules around good faith when responding, the problem is people feeling obliged to respond.
    - paulmd 5y ago
      Imagine staking the correctness of your system on the social skills of HN users lmao
      - DoreenMichele 5y ago
        In this case, dragonwriter is correct though. One is not obligated to respond, something it took me an excessively long time to learn. The correct thing to do if you feel it is being done in bad faith -- or for any reason feel it's unproductive -- is stop replying.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    > why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment The person who asked the question didn't even bring it up. There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. But there is harm done in treating a good faith question as bad faith. Unless someone is repeatedly spamming a venue, this whole sealioning thing is just people caring too much about who "wins" on the internet.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. There absolutely can be.
    - paulmd 5y ago
      > There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. That is the primary misconception which is exploited by the sealion tactic. It allows a bad-faith individual to reverse the position of offender and victim - because what harm is there in just asking a good-faith question? Questions are still part of an argument, they are "leading" the reader. And addressing it carries the implication that it's a valid position worthy of respect and time to address it. And some questions can be very noxious indeed and do need to be stifled outright - "what good has [minority group] ever done for us" is quite a harmful question even if the answer is legitimately "lots"! And again, even merely by bringing it up, and by addressing it in response, you've given it legitimacy both as a question around that particular group, and to the idea that groups need to justify their existence/presence in society. Those are both very harmful things done merely by "answering a bad-faith question in good faith". Again, perhaps a more core value disagreement is that "good-faith discussion" can legitimately solve all woes, including malicious actors. That is really the basis of your "no harm can be done by answering a bad-faith question in good faith", is it not? That seems like magical thinking to me. Anyway, "no harm can ever be caused by answering a bad-faith question with a good-faith response" is quite a broad position, perhaps you can cite some evidence or studies on that one, because there's rather trivial examples like hate speech that definitely run against it.
castlecrasher2 5y ago
I'll give you reddit is rude about this but IMO on HN questioning is perfectly reasonable. In this case, though, I imagine most would agree the parent comment came off as needlessly arrogant and defensive, especially since they could easily Google the answer.

blowski 5y ago

I don’t think the OP is discussing in good faith. They’re projecting a rather tangential opinion disguised as an innocent question. Their opinion is then being undermined by facts, thus they are being downvoted, and complaining about the downvotes. There’s a lot of behaviour there that goes against the guidelines of most forums.

paulmd 5y ago
This tactic is called "sealioning", named after this comic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ HN's rules around faux-politeness make it extremely susceptible to this kind of attack: not everyone is actually acting in good-faith and it makes discussions extremely tedious dealing with sealions who exploit that to drag the discussions of interest to a halt while the bad-faith user demands that we engage in a lengthy discussion of basic underlying points to keep from engaging the actual topic of discussion. Oh, but if you say it then you're the bad guy, because we have this rule! Again, why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment? Literally the only connection is they're both lawsuits. There's been a ton of words written about something that is entirely off-topic, because of this sealioning from the parent. That is textbook, open-and-shut, exactly what this tactic is designed to do.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > HN's rules around faux-politeness make it extremely susceptible to this kind of attack Not if people downvote rather than responding to nonproductive contributions. The problem isn't the rules around good faith when responding, the problem is people feeling obliged to respond.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Imagine staking the correctness of your system on the social skills of HN users lmao
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      In this case, dragonwriter is correct though. One is not obligated to respond, something it took me an excessively long time to learn. The correct thing to do if you feel it is being done in bad faith -- or for any reason feel it's unproductive -- is stop replying.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  > why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment The person who asked the question didn't even bring it up. There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. But there is harm done in treating a good faith question as bad faith. Unless someone is repeatedly spamming a venue, this whole sealioning thing is just people caring too much about who "wins" on the internet.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. There absolutely can be.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    > There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. That is the primary misconception which is exploited by the sealion tactic. It allows a bad-faith individual to reverse the position of offender and victim - because what harm is there in just asking a good-faith question? Questions are still part of an argument, they are "leading" the reader. And addressing it carries the implication that it's a valid position worthy of respect and time to address it. And some questions can be very noxious indeed and do need to be stifled outright - "what good has [minority group] ever done for us" is quite a harmful question even if the answer is legitimately "lots"! And again, even merely by bringing it up, and by addressing it in response, you've given it legitimacy both as a question around that particular group, and to the idea that groups need to justify their existence/presence in society. Those are both very harmful things done merely by "answering a bad-faith question in good faith". Again, perhaps a more core value disagreement is that "good-faith discussion" can legitimately solve all woes, including malicious actors. That is really the basis of your "no harm can be done by answering a bad-faith question in good faith", is it not? That seems like magical thinking to me. Anyway, "no harm can ever be caused by answering a bad-faith question with a good-faith response" is quite a broad position, perhaps you can cite some evidence or studies on that one, because there's rather trivial examples like hate speech that definitely run against it.

castlecrasher2 5y ago

I'll give you reddit is rude about this but IMO on HN questioning is perfectly reasonable. In this case, though, I imagine most would agree the parent comment came off as needlessly arrogant and defensive, especially since they could easily Google the answer.