3 ms·

I mention a figure and that automatically assumes "flamewar"? EDIT after reading comments: Well, sir, that's the quality of the people making the impolite disc

I mention a figure and that automatically assumes "flamewar"? EDIT after reading comments: Well, sir, that's the quality of the people making the impolite discourse here, not myself!

dang 4y ago
Obviously what you posted was religious flamebait. This isn't a borderline call. If you set off a flamewar in which other people behave badly, the primary responsibility lies with you. (I don't mean you personally, of course - I mean any of us posting here.) It's not as if these outcomes are hard to predict. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- pmarreck 4y ago
  So no matter how objectively or rationally true something is, if it triggers people, it is flamebait? I'm not a fan of Trump but if I merely mention his name and it sets off a flamewar, then the primary responsibility lies with me? Really? Honest question as it was literally 100% not my intent so I'm just a little surprised. It's like I said Santa Claus doesn't exist and that triggered a bunch of children, so it's my fault... I fail to understand. I can think of just 1 example where everyone agrees that simply speaking a truth is wrong and that is "spoilers," but in that case it's because it is objectively ruining the enjoyment of people. I don't know what exactly I'm "ruining" here
  - dang 4y ago
    Yes, in the same way that if you drop a lit match in a dry forest, you're responsible for the resulting fire, whether you intended that result or not. Intent doesn't communicate itself and isn't what determines outcomes. We have to moderate by effects, not intent. It isn't enough for a statement to be true—besides which, you may feel something to be true and yet others may intensely dispute it. In case it helps at all, here are past explanations on that point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      OK, I've read through all of these and I have to say I am deeply impressed by your grasp of what to many are some pretty subtle but important distinctions (AND compromises) to make. As well as your persistence in communicating your grasp of these distinctions and compromises. Damn. It's actually fascinating to trace back to the conversations you were responding to and see the examples that cropped up. I think that what you're getting at is exactly the sort of thing that is communicated nonverbally in person, but which gets lost over text. Anyway, thanks. I'm now going to post portions of this discussion to ChatGPT4 just to see what it thinks... (Also, lead as nutrient? What the heck did that guy post??)
      - dang 4y ago
        Thank you very much for taking the time to read those posts and write this thoughtful response! I really appreciate it. > What the heck did that guy post? You should be able to see everything by turning 'showdead' on in your profile. (Standard disclaimer: if you do that, please realize that you're signing up to see the worst that the internet brings to HN; and don't forget that you did it! We regularly get emails from users complaining about awful comments on HN, and then it turns out those accounts were banned a long time ago and the user just forgot that they had 'showdead' on.)

I mention a figure and that automatically assumes "flamewar"? EDIT after reading comments: Well, sir, that's the quality of the people making the impolite discourse here, not myself!

dang 4y ago

Obviously what you posted was religious flamebait. This isn't a borderline call. If you set off a flamewar in which other people behave badly, the primary responsibility lies with you. (I don't mean you personally, of course - I mean any of us posting here.) It's not as if these outcomes are hard to predict. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

pmarreck 4y ago
So no matter how objectively or rationally true something is, if it triggers people, it is flamebait? I'm not a fan of Trump but if I merely mention his name and it sets off a flamewar, then the primary responsibility lies with me? Really? Honest question as it was literally 100% not my intent so I'm just a little surprised. It's like I said Santa Claus doesn't exist and that triggered a bunch of children, so it's my fault... I fail to understand. I can think of just 1 example where everyone agrees that simply speaking a truth is wrong and that is "spoilers," but in that case it's because it is objectively ruining the enjoyment of people. I don't know what exactly I'm "ruining" here
- dang 4y ago
  Yes, in the same way that if you drop a lit match in a dry forest, you're responsible for the resulting fire, whether you intended that result or not. Intent doesn't communicate itself and isn't what determines outcomes. We have to moderate by effects, not intent. It isn't enough for a statement to be true—besides which, you may feel something to be true and yet others may intensely dispute it. In case it helps at all, here are past explanations on that point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    OK, I've read through all of these and I have to say I am deeply impressed by your grasp of what to many are some pretty subtle but important distinctions (AND compromises) to make. As well as your persistence in communicating your grasp of these distinctions and compromises. Damn. It's actually fascinating to trace back to the conversations you were responding to and see the examples that cropped up. I think that what you're getting at is exactly the sort of thing that is communicated nonverbally in person, but which gets lost over text. Anyway, thanks. I'm now going to post portions of this discussion to ChatGPT4 just to see what it thinks... (Also, lead as nutrient? What the heck did that guy post??)
    - dang 4y ago
      Thank you very much for taking the time to read those posts and write this thoughtful response! I really appreciate it. > What the heck did that guy post? You should be able to see everything by turning 'showdead' on in your profile. (Standard disclaimer: if you do that, please realize that you're signing up to see the worst that the internet brings to HN; and don't forget that you did it! We regularly get emails from users complaining about awful comments on HN, and then it turns out those accounts were banned a long time ago and the user just forgot that they had 'showdead' on.)