4 ms·

The dispute OP has, which I also share, is with this statement: >I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. No one is incre

by Kranar 4y ago

The dispute OP has, which I also share, is with this statement: >I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. No one is incredulous or outraged by anything you said. You pointed out that you saw a lot of inappropriate pictures, some people seem to agree, some disagree, but no one is outraged.

SilasX 4y ago
Disagreeing means being incredulous. If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? Again, assuming you’re trying to be reflectively consistent, you wouldn’t downvote or object to a warning of shock images unless you felt that warning was really off-base. If you simply chalked it up to differing standards, you’d shrug and move on, not doggedly insist that nobody could possibly be bothered by the images. That is what makes it feel like outrage.
- dspillett 4y ago
  > Disagreeing means being incredulous. > That is what makes it feel like outrage. You need to clam down, and reflect on the concept of nuance. People can disagree and express alternate ideas without being outraged. Not being 100% behind something does not imply complete incredulity about it. Not every counterpoint in a discussion is a personal attack. > “no one could possibly need that warning” Unless someone has said that to you in a PM or other message we can't see, you are imagining the argument being put forward because it has not directly been said, nor intentionally implied, in the rest of the public thread thus far. > If you’re downvoting No downvotes from me, and there can't have been many from elsewhere as your posts colour did not go gray (it has now, several hours later, but not before the “why is _everyone_ so _angry_ at what I said” comment). Downvotes without explanation can be safely ignored IMO: I take them as meaning “someone is upset that I'm right and/or they lack the presence of mind to express their counter view as a valid discussion point”, and I move on.
- Kranar 4y ago
  >Disagreeing means being incredulous. It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous. >If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind. It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Okay. This will probably be my last reply, as there's not much point to replying to someone who ignores what you're saying -- that's not the kind of thing that leads to meaningful, substantive exchange of ideas between curious minds. As I've said twice now, it should take an unusually high threshold to downvote a content warning. This is because there is disproportionate downside to the people that it's relevant to. So no, it's enough enough to say, "oh, gosh, I wasn't offended, so, let's make sure no one else sees a warning about possible offensive content". (Most forums put the NSFW/L warning on a separate track so it can't be voted on!) I mean, really. Imagine doing that in any other context. "Oh, hey guys, this should have a rape trigger warning." And then you downvote because "oh, well, hm, doesn't really feel like rape to me, maybe they agreed in advance to do that as roleplay? So yeah, I don't really see the problem with that scene, maybe just, quit viewing this at work, ya know?". Such an attitude would be deeply confused -- and arguably hostile. I imagine you'd react just as I did to such a trivialization of the warning. The only reason to downvote such a warning is if the warning is clearly false. Say, in the rape trigger example, if the scene contained no sex or violence at all. In that case, yes, I would such call a downvoter -- including myself -- outraged at the mislabeling. That was the (charitable!) model I had of those who elected to suppress the warning I gave. That they thought it was so out-of-line as to be ridiculous and insulting to the maker of the app. But as I also noted, perhaps people don't think that far ahead. Even so, they lack empathy for not realizing the importance of such warnings. And you no longer have that excuse. >It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: What do you think the proper HN etiqutte is for shock images?

by Kranar 4y ago

SilasX 4y ago

Disagreeing means being incredulous. If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? Again, assuming you’re trying to be reflectively consistent, you wouldn’t downvote or object to a warning of shock images unless you felt that warning was really off-base. If you simply chalked it up to differing standards, you’d shrug and move on, not doggedly insist that nobody could possibly be bothered by the images. That is what makes it feel like outrage.

dspillett 4y ago
> Disagreeing means being incredulous. > That is what makes it feel like outrage. You need to clam down, and reflect on the concept of nuance. People can disagree and express alternate ideas without being outraged. Not being 100% behind something does not imply complete incredulity about it. Not every counterpoint in a discussion is a personal attack. > “no one could possibly need that warning” Unless someone has said that to you in a PM or other message we can't see, you are imagining the argument being put forward because it has not directly been said, nor intentionally implied, in the rest of the public thread thus far. > If you’re downvoting No downvotes from me, and there can't have been many from elsewhere as your posts colour did not go gray (it has now, several hours later, but not before the “why is _everyone_ so _angry_ at what I said” comment). Downvotes without explanation can be safely ignored IMO: I take them as meaning “someone is upset that I'm right and/or they lack the presence of mind to express their counter view as a valid discussion point”, and I move on.
Kranar 4y ago
>Disagreeing means being incredulous. It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous. >If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind. It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- SilasX 4y ago
  Okay. This will probably be my last reply, as there's not much point to replying to someone who ignores what you're saying -- that's not the kind of thing that leads to meaningful, substantive exchange of ideas between curious minds. As I've said twice now, it should take an unusually high threshold to downvote a content warning. This is because there is disproportionate downside to the people that it's relevant to. So no, it's enough enough to say, "oh, gosh, I wasn't offended, so, let's make sure no one else sees a warning about possible offensive content". (Most forums put the NSFW/L warning on a separate track so it can't be voted on!) I mean, really. Imagine doing that in any other context. "Oh, hey guys, this should have a rape trigger warning." And then you downvote because "oh, well, hm, doesn't really feel like rape to me, maybe they agreed in advance to do that as roleplay? So yeah, I don't really see the problem with that scene, maybe just, quit viewing this at work, ya know?". Such an attitude would be deeply confused -- and arguably hostile. I imagine you'd react just as I did to such a trivialization of the warning. The only reason to downvote such a warning is if the warning is clearly false. Say, in the rape trigger example, if the scene contained no sex or violence at all. In that case, yes, I would such call a downvoter -- including myself -- outraged at the mislabeling. That was the (charitable!) model I had of those who elected to suppress the warning I gave. That they thought it was so out-of-line as to be ridiculous and insulting to the maker of the app. But as I also noted, perhaps people don't think that far ahead. Even so, they lack empathy for not realizing the importance of such warnings. And you no longer have that excuse. >It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: What do you think the proper HN etiqutte is for shock images?