6 ms·

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 misinterpret

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.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      >Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. I think it is relevant. It shows that Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The difference here is, I'm not being a jerk. People just like to think that way when they're told they're wrong. Nobody likes being told that they're utterly wrong. >You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely to become one of the greatest programmers in the world. It's quite unlikely and even for a minor statement like that I'm getting a warning. >it's not that complicated. Isn't this mean? I mean are you implying that this concept is so complicated that I can't comprehend it? I obviously have enough intelligence to understand your point, so by saying this you're insulting me. Now you're a jerk. That's my interpretation. We both know I'm trying to push for less restrictive rules around speech. It's better to address that point rather then endlessly repeating "don't be a jerk.". And, honestly, I wasn't really even a jerk. >being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. He has records and I just got marked. That's what happened here. It wasn't just "asking nicely."
      - pvg 4y ago
        Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely No, that's simply being a jerk. Isn't this mean? no Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen.
        deltasevennine 4y ago
dang 4y ago
You can't define these lines in some formal way, so even using a word like "define" is already a step away from useful. From my perspective, you were bullying a kid (yes, 18 years old is a young adult, but also still a kid—this is obviously still someone who deserves consideration based on his age). You weren't just bullying a kid—you were haranguing to the point of harassment, refusing to let go, and pretending to be helpful when there wasn't a hint of empathy in any of your language. The word asshole would be more appropriate to describe this than the word jerk, but I decided to tone it down in my reply to you. It's perfectly age-appropriate for an 18 year old to feel ambitions like "be the best programmer in the world". This is healthy adolescent grandiosity—I felt similar things at that age, just like a lot of people. The proper way to react to that is to reflect back the health in it, share in his hope and excitement, and give some useful pointers about how to develop in his desired direction. To take it as some sort of statistical claim and well-actually him about how low his odds are and how delusional he is, all the while kicking down and belittling what he has achieved so far, is definitely asshole behavior. Would you tell a 12-year-old he'll never be a professional athlete, or a 5-year-old he'll never be a fireman? Statistically the odds are negligible, right? The fact that you got triggered by an 18-year-old's ambition into trying to knock him down that hard made your comments obviously drenched with your own personal feelings, even though you expressed those feelings in an indirect way that pretended to be objective. Perhaps you have some beliefs about how being brutally negative to other people is the best way to "help" them, but an open internet forum like HN is precisely the wrong place to do that—there's far too much room for misunderstanding which can easily turn into cruelty. If you're not concerned about "advice" turning into cruelty, then you don't have the other person's best interests at heart. Transgender/pronoun/$culture-war issues have zero to do with this. When you bring that up in this context, it's clear that you were at least partly motivated by an extraneous agenda. That again indicates not having the other person's interests at heart. Comparing yourself to Galileo is...rather a tall bar to clear, at least as grandiose as "becoming one of the best programmers". It's also beside the point. This is an internet forum. There are no Galileos here—the genre doesn't allow for it. What the genre does invite is a lot of supercilious comments that go way overboard with their rhetoric. This is not battling-for-truth or whatever; it's garden-variety internet fodder, nasty and tedious.
- deltasevennine 4y ago

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.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    >Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. I think it is relevant. It shows that Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The difference here is, I'm not being a jerk. People just like to think that way when they're told they're wrong. Nobody likes being told that they're utterly wrong. >You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely to become one of the greatest programmers in the world. It's quite unlikely and even for a minor statement like that I'm getting a warning. >it's not that complicated. Isn't this mean? I mean are you implying that this concept is so complicated that I can't comprehend it? I obviously have enough intelligence to understand your point, so by saying this you're insulting me. Now you're a jerk. That's my interpretation. We both know I'm trying to push for less restrictive rules around speech. It's better to address that point rather then endlessly repeating "don't be a jerk.". And, honestly, I wasn't really even a jerk. >being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. He has records and I just got marked. That's what happened here. It wasn't just "asking nicely."
    - pvg 4y ago
      Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely No, that's simply being a jerk. Isn't this mean? no Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago

dang 4y ago

You can't define these lines in some formal way, so even using a word like "define" is already a step away from useful. From my perspective, you were bullying a kid (yes, 18 years old is a young adult, but also still a kid—this is obviously still someone who deserves consideration based on his age). You weren't just bullying a kid—you were haranguing to the point of harassment, refusing to let go, and pretending to be helpful when there wasn't a hint of empathy in any of your language. The word asshole would be more appropriate to describe this than the word jerk, but I decided to tone it down in my reply to you. It's perfectly age-appropriate for an 18 year old to feel ambitions like "be the best programmer in the world". This is healthy adolescent grandiosity—I felt similar things at that age, just like a lot of people. The proper way to react to that is to reflect back the health in it, share in his hope and excitement, and give some useful pointers about how to develop in his desired direction. To take it as some sort of statistical claim and well-actually him about how low his odds are and how delusional he is, all the while kicking down and belittling what he has achieved so far, is definitely asshole behavior. Would you tell a 12-year-old he'll never be a professional athlete, or a 5-year-old he'll never be a fireman? Statistically the odds are negligible, right? The fact that you got triggered by an 18-year-old's ambition into trying to knock him down that hard made your comments obviously drenched with your own personal feelings, even though you expressed those feelings in an indirect way that pretended to be objective. Perhaps you have some beliefs about how being brutally negative to other people is the best way to "help" them, but an open internet forum like HN is precisely the wrong place to do that—there's far too much room for misunderstanding which can easily turn into cruelty. If you're not concerned about "advice" turning into cruelty, then you don't have the other person's best interests at heart. Transgender/pronoun/$culture-war issues have zero to do with this. When you bring that up in this context, it's clear that you were at least partly motivated by an extraneous agenda. That again indicates not having the other person's interests at heart. Comparing yourself to Galileo is...rather a tall bar to clear, at least as grandiose as "becoming one of the best programmers". It's also beside the point. This is an internet forum. There are no Galileos here—the genre doesn't allow for it. What the genre does invite is a lot of supercilious comments that go way overboard with their rhetoric. This is not battling-for-truth or whatever; it's garden-variety internet fodder, nasty and tedious.

deltasevennine 4y ago