7 ms·

> Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It's literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability. Downthread? Be

> Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It's literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability. Downthread? Because you're being obtuse and, when people answer, asking a bunch more questions that you could easily google the answers to. It's not coming off as a good-faith discussion.

freedomben 4y ago
As someone slightly on the spectrum, I regularly get accused of being "obtuse" when I'm asking honest questions to make sense of something. Of course some people really do intentionally be difficult, but OP's question was not near enough info to conclude that, and his additional responses were after he got slammed with downvotes (which usually bother people)
- brimble 4y ago
  > Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? The questions read as slanted. This is a warning sign that you're dealing with someone who's already made up their mind and is just looking to argue. That "just" especially is... a red flag. That on its own might not mean much, but then, there's this entire post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 Which looks like a continuation of exactly that kind of thing. Asking questions in a one-sided way, demanding others do things for you even when they already pointed you in the right direction, hostile tone, et c. Even if done innocently, this style of posting can't be tolerated because it's a beloved trolling/shitposting tactic.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I think there was a communication issue. My post could have been worded better. I was specifically interested in the culpability portion. To my knowledge at that time it was simply about the temperature of the coffee. People were bringing up the injury portion. I wasn't questioning that part. Someone else on here brought up that the design of the cup was defective. That was the type of information I was looking for. Even some Google searching was not bringing up that for me, probably because like this thread, most people are focused on just the injury and the temperature. The cup issue really added to my understanding of the case, and answered my question about why it was not a frivolous case.
    - brimble 4y ago
      Apologies for any offense my post gave you, then. I sincerely hope you have a great rest of your day (and to be extra clear, because writing on the Internet is hard, that's not sarcasm). I'll let it stand as a general description of why people may react negatively to certain kinds of post.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        No apology needed. My own post could have been worded better so I was taking the opportunity to clarify it.
- castlecrasher2 4y ago
  >As someone slightly on the spectrum, I regularly get accused of being "obtuse" when I'm asking honest questions to make sense of something. I'm similar, but I've come to recognize that the default of communication is asshole, and the best method to avoid that is to ensure you're meeting others halfway in a conversation. I imagine most would agree that the parent comment's statement "Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees?" comes off as somewhat ignorant in that they could have done a quick Google search or asked less defensively if they genuinely wanted an answer. Their followup comment is even worse.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I realize now that my wording could have been different. Just as my comment made the assumption we were talking about the culpability portion of the case, many other commenters assumed we were talking about just the injury portion of the case. I did try to search for info. But like this thread, I was only finding stuff about the temperature and the injury. Another commenter brought up the defective cup design here. This was the type of info I was looking for related to culpability that I couldn't find. This is what I like about HN - the google search results were not useful since it's (appearently) such a divisive topic, but a well informed HN'er had the additional info.
- SilasX 4y ago
  SlateStarCodex had a great article about this phenomenon (where honest truth seekers look like trolls), and dubbed it "Socratic Grilling": https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/06/socratic-grilling/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/06/socratic-grilling/
- jrockway 4y ago
  I think on HN, you have to go out of your way to ask a question. Most people are using questions to imply that the comment they're replying to is wrong, thus when people see it, they think you're taking that angle. I've run into this a couple times. Something like "I'm genuinely asking." can be helpful here, but even then, people are battle-hardened enough to think that's sarcastic too. I think what I'd do here is start a new top-level comment like "Some other comments are talking about the McDonalds thing. Does anyone have any more details on this? Was it just that the coffee was too hot, or where there other factors that made that a lawsuit?"

freedomben 4y ago

As someone slightly on the spectrum, I regularly get accused of being "obtuse" when I'm asking honest questions to make sense of something. Of course some people really do intentionally be difficult, but OP's question was not near enough info to conclude that, and his additional responses were after he got slammed with downvotes (which usually bother people)

brimble 4y ago
> Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? The questions read as slanted. This is a warning sign that you're dealing with someone who's already made up their mind and is just looking to argue. That "just" especially is... a red flag. That on its own might not mean much, but then, there's this entire post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 Which looks like a continuation of exactly that kind of thing. Asking questions in a one-sided way, demanding others do things for you even when they already pointed you in the right direction, hostile tone, et c. Even if done innocently, this style of posting can't be tolerated because it's a beloved trolling/shitposting tactic.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I think there was a communication issue. My post could have been worded better. I was specifically interested in the culpability portion. To my knowledge at that time it was simply about the temperature of the coffee. People were bringing up the injury portion. I wasn't questioning that part. Someone else on here brought up that the design of the cup was defective. That was the type of information I was looking for. Even some Google searching was not bringing up that for me, probably because like this thread, most people are focused on just the injury and the temperature. The cup issue really added to my understanding of the case, and answered my question about why it was not a frivolous case.
  - brimble 4y ago
    Apologies for any offense my post gave you, then. I sincerely hope you have a great rest of your day (and to be extra clear, because writing on the Internet is hard, that's not sarcasm). I'll let it stand as a general description of why people may react negatively to certain kinds of post.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      No apology needed. My own post could have been worded better so I was taking the opportunity to clarify it.
castlecrasher2 4y ago
>As someone slightly on the spectrum, I regularly get accused of being "obtuse" when I'm asking honest questions to make sense of something. I'm similar, but I've come to recognize that the default of communication is asshole, and the best method to avoid that is to ensure you're meeting others halfway in a conversation. I imagine most would agree that the parent comment's statement "Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees?" comes off as somewhat ignorant in that they could have done a quick Google search or asked less defensively if they genuinely wanted an answer. Their followup comment is even worse.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I realize now that my wording could have been different. Just as my comment made the assumption we were talking about the culpability portion of the case, many other commenters assumed we were talking about just the injury portion of the case. I did try to search for info. But like this thread, I was only finding stuff about the temperature and the injury. Another commenter brought up the defective cup design here. This was the type of info I was looking for related to culpability that I couldn't find. This is what I like about HN - the google search results were not useful since it's (appearently) such a divisive topic, but a well informed HN'er had the additional info.
SilasX 4y ago
SlateStarCodex had a great article about this phenomenon (where honest truth seekers look like trolls), and dubbed it "Socratic Grilling": https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/06/socratic-grilling/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/06/socratic-grilling/
jrockway 4y ago
I think on HN, you have to go out of your way to ask a question. Most people are using questions to imply that the comment they're replying to is wrong, thus when people see it, they think you're taking that angle. I've run into this a couple times. Something like "I'm genuinely asking." can be helpful here, but even then, people are battle-hardened enough to think that's sarcastic too. I think what I'd do here is start a new top-level comment like "Some other comments are talking about the McDonalds thing. Does anyone have any more details on this? Was it just that the coffee was too hot, or where there other factors that made that a lawsuit?"