4 ms·

> I think this can only be taken to a point before you realise you'll be wasting your time. If a waste of time is lack of progress towards a desired outcome, y

by gyulai 4y ago

> I think this can only be taken to a point before you realise you'll be wasting your time. If a waste of time is lack of progress towards a desired outcome, you'd first need to define what the desired outcome is. Arguments on the internet almost never have the effect of persuading the person you're debating of your opinion when they didn't previously hold that opinion already. But for those on the side lines who merely read through a thread without participating because they simply hold no opinion on the matter at all, or maybe encounter it years later when searching for some information on a search engine, there often is value when both sides of a debate carry it on for as long as they have new information to provide and their time budget will allow. The termination criterion that's actually in effect most of the time is that a debate is broken off when the overall tone has veered away from civility by too much. That's why we rarely get to see good debates on the internet. They are broken off exactly when they should be getting interesting. ...so that's why I say: It's lack of civility that deserves downvotes, not opposing viewpoints. Debating, after all, is almost a bit like a sport. Now imagine someone challenges a boxing world champion to a fight, and the world thinks that the fight is worth watching. Now the champion turns it down, thinking to himself "It would be a waste of my time to fight this person who is just so much worse of a fighter". ...that would be unsportsmanlike. And what's the worst that could happen? Either the champion reaffirms his position and the fight is a bit boring (but still good "training"), or it's a Creed vs Rocky kind of thing, where everybody gets an unexpected retune of their respective perceptions. ...either way, if it's a fight the world wants to see, I'd just give it to them.

lesuorac 4y ago
> Arguments on the internet almost never have the effect of persuading the person you're debating of your opinion when they didn't previously hold that opinion already. Well yeah because the arguments are all poorly defended; see below. Not going to change my mind because the tide goes in and the tide goes out. > Debating, after all, is almost a bit like a sport. Now imagine someone challenges a boxing world champion to a fight, and the world thinks that the fight is worth watching. Now the champion turns it down, thinking to himself "It would be a waste of my time to fight this person who is just so much worse of a fighter". ...that would be unsportsmanlike. Except that if scott_w doesn't comment somebody else can. The analogy breaks down very fast because if the world really thinks somebody should argue with the random person then anybody in the world can. If the world doesn't think that then there'll end up being no replies and the world doesn't care. Also almost certainly if you ran into a world champion in the street and challenged them to their sport they wouldn't accept
scott_w 4y ago
> They are broken off exactly when they should be getting interesting. As someone who lived through the Brexit debate, I strongly disagree. The damage caused by elevating someone like Daniel Hannan to be comparable to an economist has been incredible. There is no debate, or anything of interest, as you have one side confidently making completely nonsensical claims that sound plausible to someone with no knowledge. On the flip side, the expert displaying their nuanced understanding usually has this used against them in the debate as signs that they don't know what they're talking about. I don't see what I, or even a more knowledgeable person in the field, would get out of such a "debate" apart from frustration.
- gyulai 4y ago
  ...well the brexit vote was split nearly 50/50. The brexiteers were "counter establishment". Do you think the vote would have been 50/50 if better together had run a campaign that was basically "We're Oxbridge-educated economists telling you that brexit is a folly, and Hannan is just a muppet whose wild claims it would be beneath us to respond to"? I'm not even saying that debate is a fruitful way of deciding anything. For me, it's a framework that frequently makes relevant information come to light. I also enjoy it as a kind of exercise regime to strengthen my intellectual muscle. Also: What's the alternative? If upvotes/downvotes on HN are just a "popularity contest of opinions", where's the fun in that? Popularity contests are an even worse way than civilised debate to decide anything, or to expose me to information it would be useful for me to get exposed to, or to help me exercise my intellectual muscle. They're just boring. And it's what's wrong with social media today: If HN is a popularity contest, and HN's majority opinions line up with mine, I will then be an HN-reader who enjoys reading on HN all the opinions I already hold. If they don't line up, it will be a frustrating experience for me to read HN, and I will then no longer be an HN-reader and find another online community whose opinions align better with my own. Where's the fun in that?
  - scott_w 4y ago
    Nothing you said has anything to do with the question at hand: "how do you upvote/downvote on HN?" so I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. Going to what I said above, it would be a waste of my time.

by gyulai 4y ago

lesuorac 4y ago

> Arguments on the internet almost never have the effect of persuading the person you're debating of your opinion when they didn't previously hold that opinion already. Well yeah because the arguments are all poorly defended; see below. Not going to change my mind because the tide goes in and the tide goes out. > Debating, after all, is almost a bit like a sport. Now imagine someone challenges a boxing world champion to a fight, and the world thinks that the fight is worth watching. Now the champion turns it down, thinking to himself "It would be a waste of my time to fight this person who is just so much worse of a fighter". ...that would be unsportsmanlike. Except that if scott_w doesn't comment somebody else can. The analogy breaks down very fast because if the world really thinks somebody should argue with the random person then anybody in the world can. If the world doesn't think that then there'll end up being no replies and the world doesn't care. Also almost certainly if you ran into a world champion in the street and challenged them to their sport they wouldn't accept

scott_w 4y ago

> They are broken off exactly when they should be getting interesting. As someone who lived through the Brexit debate, I strongly disagree. The damage caused by elevating someone like Daniel Hannan to be comparable to an economist has been incredible. There is no debate, or anything of interest, as you have one side confidently making completely nonsensical claims that sound plausible to someone with no knowledge. On the flip side, the expert displaying their nuanced understanding usually has this used against them in the debate as signs that they don't know what they're talking about. I don't see what I, or even a more knowledgeable person in the field, would get out of such a "debate" apart from frustration.

gyulai 4y ago
...well the brexit vote was split nearly 50/50. The brexiteers were "counter establishment". Do you think the vote would have been 50/50 if better together had run a campaign that was basically "We're Oxbridge-educated economists telling you that brexit is a folly, and Hannan is just a muppet whose wild claims it would be beneath us to respond to"? I'm not even saying that debate is a fruitful way of deciding anything. For me, it's a framework that frequently makes relevant information come to light. I also enjoy it as a kind of exercise regime to strengthen my intellectual muscle. Also: What's the alternative? If upvotes/downvotes on HN are just a "popularity contest of opinions", where's the fun in that? Popularity contests are an even worse way than civilised debate to decide anything, or to expose me to information it would be useful for me to get exposed to, or to help me exercise my intellectual muscle. They're just boring. And it's what's wrong with social media today: If HN is a popularity contest, and HN's majority opinions line up with mine, I will then be an HN-reader who enjoys reading on HN all the opinions I already hold. If they don't line up, it will be a frustrating experience for me to read HN, and I will then no longer be an HN-reader and find another online community whose opinions align better with my own. Where's the fun in that?
- scott_w 4y ago
  Nothing you said has anything to do with the question at hand: "how do you upvote/downvote on HN?" so I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. Going to what I said above, it would be a waste of my time.