3 ms·

I can cut him slack. But I'm not being a jerk that's taking it too far. A lot of what I said is genuine advice... it's negative yes... but it's real.

dang 4y ago
I gather that you didn't intend to be a jerk, but I'm afraid you crossed over that line repeatedly, and by a lot. It's important to remember that the intent you have in your head and the way your comments come across to other people can differ by orders of magnitude. (I don't mean "you" personally—this applies to all of us.)
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  What is that line? I don't think it's good to define it as "how it comes across." The best advice is usually negative and negative advice always is misinterpreted. If my intention isn't to be a jerk and I never explicitly acted out of bad faith or said anything that is explicitly is bad behavior, then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. The truth, isn't always well received, history shows this with big examples like galileo. So do you censor and moderate "interpretation" or "truth" because essentially what I see here is moderation of the truth in the name of a negative interpretation. This is the same type of thing influencing free speech politics and gender pronouns. Because one small group decided it's offensive to call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun, you can now get fired for mistakenly referencing someone by the wrong gender. HN would do better if it allowed room here rather then just purely going off of interpretation. Think about it. Let the downvotes moderate for opinionated stuff, I think it's excessive for you to actually bring the hammer down. Some contrarian advice is good for this young man and the community in general because it lives in a sea excessively positive advice. I got a massive amount of downvotes for my responses and that's ok. What wasn't ok for me is your warning, because I know the next time you'll actually shadow ban, and that to me is crossing the line.
  - pvg 4y ago
    then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. Social rules like that are intended to protect the community from jerky behaviour not spare the feelings of the individual who's strayed into jerkdom. They wouldn't practically work the other way - you're a jerk if enough people think you are.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      I beg to differ. Was Galileo a Jerk? He was excommunicated simply because he simply disagreed with the majority and stated the earth circled around the sun and many many people thought he was a jerk because of that. If HN excommunicates people simply because a majority disagrees with them, then this place is not a good forum for science and intelligent discussion. When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again. That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the idea behind free speech. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. So unless I explicitly threaten or insult someone. Let it be. Cast your vote. But to censor and threaten a ban? That's wrong. That's exactly what's going on here. Read carefully what I wrote, there are no threats, there are no insults, there are no explicit attacks; just my opinion. The only line crossed here is the threat of a ban; we all know Dang operates first on a warning then he bans people.
      - pvg 4y ago
        Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths and being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated. Just don't be a jerk on this forum, it's not that complicated.

dang 4y ago

I gather that you didn't intend to be a jerk, but I'm afraid you crossed over that line repeatedly, and by a lot. It's important to remember that the intent you have in your head and the way your comments come across to other people can differ by orders of magnitude. (I don't mean "you" personally—this applies to all of us.)

deltasevennine 4y ago
What is that line? I don't think it's good to define it as "how it comes across." The best advice is usually negative and negative advice always is misinterpreted. If my intention isn't to be a jerk and I never explicitly acted out of bad faith or said anything that is explicitly is bad behavior, then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. The truth, isn't always well received, history shows this with big examples like galileo. So do you censor and moderate "interpretation" or "truth" because essentially what I see here is moderation of the truth in the name of a negative interpretation. This is the same type of thing influencing free speech politics and gender pronouns. Because one small group decided it's offensive to call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun, you can now get fired for mistakenly referencing someone by the wrong gender. HN would do better if it allowed room here rather then just purely going off of interpretation. Think about it. Let the downvotes moderate for opinionated stuff, I think it's excessive for you to actually bring the hammer down. Some contrarian advice is good for this young man and the community in general because it lives in a sea excessively positive advice. I got a massive amount of downvotes for my responses and that's ok. What wasn't ok for me is your warning, because I know the next time you'll actually shadow ban, and that to me is crossing the line.
- pvg 4y ago
  then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. Social rules like that are intended to protect the community from jerky behaviour not spare the feelings of the individual who's strayed into jerkdom. They wouldn't practically work the other way - you're a jerk if enough people think you are.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    I beg to differ. Was Galileo a Jerk? He was excommunicated simply because he simply disagreed with the majority and stated the earth circled around the sun and many many people thought he was a jerk because of that. If HN excommunicates people simply because a majority disagrees with them, then this place is not a good forum for science and intelligent discussion. When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again. That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the idea behind free speech. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. So unless I explicitly threaten or insult someone. Let it be. Cast your vote. But to censor and threaten a ban? That's wrong. That's exactly what's going on here. Read carefully what I wrote, there are no threats, there are no insults, there are no explicit attacks; just my opinion. The only line crossed here is the threat of a ban; we all know Dang operates first on a warning then he bans people.
    - pvg 4y ago
      Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths and being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated. Just don't be a jerk on this forum, it's not that complicated.