4 ms·

I think they used impressive colloquially. I guess more fitting would be "interesting/amusing" Although, I think yours is a far bigger offence: being intention

I think they used impressive colloquially. I guess more fitting would be "interesting/amusing" Although, I think yours is a far bigger offence: being intentionally ignorant for the purpose of being an asshole online

endisneigh 4y ago
i'm genuinely curious what about their comment makes them an asshole. the comment is a bit dismissive, but hardly assholish
- tomrod 4y ago
  Collapse of the behavioral wave function due to observation?
- BigJ1211 4y ago
  It just reads as a snarky comment for me, doesn't really add value as everybody with a modicum of english knowledge should be able to understand.
- pdpi 4y ago
  The combination of being dismissive and adding nothing to the conversation is what makes it assholish. Their only contribution was to shoot down what was an interesting aside.
  - dcow 4y ago
    I don't particularly like the way the comment was delivered either, but it does add to the conversation (as evidenced by the other comments that respond to its content and not its tone). The comment in question is bringing up the point that geography may have something to do with the reported stats, which is another interesting thing to keep in mind.
- User23 4y ago
  It's also stupid and insulting, because those discoveries have far more to do with the capability of Swedish chemists than they do with geography.
  - null_object 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - rejectfinite 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - bdhcuidbebe 4y ago
        ta ock nu sueidi sät din sist potatis
      - dang 4y ago
        Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've been doing repeatedly lot lately, and we ban such accounts. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385788.
    - dang 4y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- spoiler 4y ago
  Others have pointed out what struck me as assholeish: perceived snarky tone, seems antagonistic for no reason, and completely unproductive. Like, why did they make that comment? I can't see any point other than criticizing and demeaning the other person for their statement (which also seems to be intentionally misinterpreted). Of course, there could be a language barrier (which I didn't think of immediately), in which case I'm the asshole
  - dcow 4y ago
    I actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure. But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part? The comment is bare and terse, questioning whether it's really that impressive when you factor in geography or whether it's more or less to be expected. There is no ad hominem attack. For instance, Japan has good sea food cuisine. Sure that's awesome and nothing to disparage, but neither is it especially impressive considering they're an island. I think this is the point the comment is attempting to communicate.
    - spoiler 4y ago
      > actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure. Maybe most of us had worse experience with people than you, and have developed a more cynical model of human behaviour. > But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part? This is just my quick analysis of what is probably more intuitive in my head than well fleshed out. I didn't think about this very hard, but I wanted to indulge you since you put effort into your comment of the situation. It was written very tersely, it was disguised as a question, and it was directly aimed at the author of the comment, not the content of their comment. Also the way they clung onto a narrow definition of impressive seems like a petty attempt to reconstruct the narrative around the original comment's content to show how they're smart and the original poster isn't for "giving kudos" (ie being impressed) to a geographical area. Like I said earlier though, maybe I read too much into it. Also, I have higher standards for comment etiquette on HN than I would on other platforms. Why? I don't really know. Maybe that's a mistake too, clearly.

endisneigh 4y ago

i'm genuinely curious what about their comment makes them an asshole. the comment is a bit dismissive, but hardly assholish

tomrod 4y ago
Collapse of the behavioral wave function due to observation?
BigJ1211 4y ago
It just reads as a snarky comment for me, doesn't really add value as everybody with a modicum of english knowledge should be able to understand.
pdpi 4y ago
The combination of being dismissive and adding nothing to the conversation is what makes it assholish. Their only contribution was to shoot down what was an interesting aside.
- dcow 4y ago
  I don't particularly like the way the comment was delivered either, but it does add to the conversation (as evidenced by the other comments that respond to its content and not its tone). The comment in question is bringing up the point that geography may have something to do with the reported stats, which is another interesting thing to keep in mind.
User23 4y ago
It's also stupid and insulting, because those discoveries have far more to do with the capability of Swedish chemists than they do with geography.
- null_object 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - rejectfinite 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - bdhcuidbebe 4y ago
      ta ock nu sueidi sät din sist potatis
    - dang 4y ago
      Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've been doing repeatedly lot lately, and we ban such accounts. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385788.
  - dang 4y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
spoiler 4y ago
Others have pointed out what struck me as assholeish: perceived snarky tone, seems antagonistic for no reason, and completely unproductive. Like, why did they make that comment? I can't see any point other than criticizing and demeaning the other person for their statement (which also seems to be intentionally misinterpreted). Of course, there could be a language barrier (which I didn't think of immediately), in which case I'm the asshole
- dcow 4y ago
  I actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure. But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part? The comment is bare and terse, questioning whether it's really that impressive when you factor in geography or whether it's more or less to be expected. There is no ad hominem attack. For instance, Japan has good sea food cuisine. Sure that's awesome and nothing to disparage, but neither is it especially impressive considering they're an island. I think this is the point the comment is attempting to communicate.
  - spoiler 4y ago
    > actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure. Maybe most of us had worse experience with people than you, and have developed a more cynical model of human behaviour. > But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part? This is just my quick analysis of what is probably more intuitive in my head than well fleshed out. I didn't think about this very hard, but I wanted to indulge you since you put effort into your comment of the situation. It was written very tersely, it was disguised as a question, and it was directly aimed at the author of the comment, not the content of their comment. Also the way they clung onto a narrow definition of impressive seems like a petty attempt to reconstruct the narrative around the original comment's content to show how they're smart and the original poster isn't for "giving kudos" (ie being impressed) to a geographical area. Like I said earlier though, maybe I read too much into it. Also, I have higher standards for comment etiquette on HN than I would on other platforms. Why? I don't really know. Maybe that's a mistake too, clearly.