5 ms·

> Assume positive intentions from the other person. This works well in professional settings, but falls apart in certain online communities. How do you deal wi

by dom96 3y ago

> Assume positive intentions from the other person. This works well in professional settings, but falls apart in certain online communities. How do you deal with people that don't have positive intentions, but actually have the precise opposite intentions, i.e. they want to attribute any perceived problem with your work as it meaning you are a bad programmer. Not taking that personally is far tougher.

iamacyborg 3y ago
Short answer, you don’t. If folks are not providing constructive feedback there’s no reason to pay any attention to what they’re saying.
pjc50 3y ago
Sometimes this makes it easier to deal with them. Do I respect this person's opinions? No. Is there any value in what they've said? Also no. So it's just another piece of spam, garbage, or trolling that we all wade through regularly with the delete key. (The downside of internet fame to anyone is that you will attract far, far more of these people, regardless of what you do.)
- dom96 3y ago
  > The downside of internet fame to anyone is that you will attract far, far more of these people, regardless of what you do. Yeah... I don't consider myself to have "internet fame" but I suppose I'm well known enough in certain large communities that I've managed to attract these people. I've ended up leaving the communities where these people are active, but I have seen evidence that they continue to spout lies about me there. I often wonder if people just take what they say at face value. The urge is to stay in those communities and correct the record at every opportunity to defend my reputation, but that takes a huge amount of effort and sanity to deal with. Is the advice in these situations to simply ignore and forget?
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    It seems to me that there are two cases here. In the first case, the community is healthy. In that case, someone spouting lies about someone who isn't even there anymore is going to look rather odd, especially if you had a history and a track record there. It has a good chance of not getting much traction, and it might get some pushback from the community. In this case you have a fair chance of being able to successfully leave your reputation in the community's hands. In the second case, the community is toxic. The lies are believed, and even amplified by others. Your reputation there is toast. You could go back and fight for your reputation, but if you did, you'd be likely to lose, and the attempt would eat up your time and emotional stability. In either case, just walking away and ignoring it is about as good a strategy as you can find. Note well: I am a random nobody on the net. I don't have a reputation online, except under pseudonyms, so I am talking about what I do not actually know. (Yes, I am aware of one person online who defamed my real-life identity. They were obscure enough, and their rant was obviously unhinged enough, that I felt no actual harm from just ignoring it.)
    - dom96 3y ago
      What you say makes sense and matches what my own thoughts around this subject have been. It definitely helps to hear it reaffirmed by others, so thank you.
tbrownaw 3y ago
> i.e. they want to attribute any perceived problem with your work as it meaning you are a bad programmer. Not taking that personally is far tougher. I know enough that I can tell if it's preference (say, linting style) or misguided (for example there's some wrong advice floating around that multiple returns are inherently bad) or something I actually missed, and in that last case usually how much of an issue it actually is and whether it's a new topic to learn or something I forgot or something I deliberately didn't bother with.
latexr 3y ago
> This works well in professional settings, but falls apart in certain online communities. If you’re part of an online community where bad intentions are the norm, I’d recommend moving on to another. Why spend your time with a group that frequently makes you feel bad on purpose? > How do you deal with people that don't have positive intentions, but actually have the precise opposite intentions You move on to the third paragraph. Either ignore it (that can be tough, but the sooner you let it go and continue with your day the easier it becomes) or respectfully point out the problem. Try to have them not take it personally lest they become defensive and double down. The goal is deescalation. Speak specifically to the content of their message instead of them as a person. Use a variation of assuming good intentions: assume they are normally a good and reasonable person who is having a bad day and lashed out once. Empathise. Give them an out to apologise for their behaviour and they often will. When that doesn’t work, reread your reply. Was it respectful and imbued with good intentions? Is it clear the goal was to improve the discourse? If not, learn from it and try again in another situation. But if you feel you did the best you could and the other party is being intransigent, let it go. Feel good about your effort. Even if you were unsuccessful with that particular individual, other people reading the exchange may take something positive out of it. Be sure to never reply in anger. That only generates more conflict and ruins your day further. There’s no point to that.
- dom96 3y ago
  > If you’re part of an online community where bad intentions are the norm, I’d recommend moving on to another. Why spend your time with a group that frequently makes you feel bad on purpose? Indeed, that's precisely what I ended up doing after what has been ~3 years of trying to make the community better. What's somewhat interesting is that it seems the community in question went downhill as soon as the pandemic started, the underlying issue was a lack of serious moderation and an unwillingness of the powers that be to introduce it and while that was okay for many years, once a critical mass of people with bad intentions arrived the environment just became toxic because they were largely unchecked.
- pm215 3y ago
  Right; and in communities where bad intentions are not the norm, usually there's some sort of moderation/escalation path/group of people you can go to for a second opinion, to ask "am I misreading this, or is this person being unnecessarily combative/abusive/whatever?". Those people can then look at it from a neutral point of view and tell the other person "hey, knock it off/tone it down a bit/whatever", which is usually all you need if it is a "just having a bad day" scenario. Or if there's a developing pattern of bad behaviour they can take further measures.
2devnull 3y ago
“you are a bad programmer” There it is: the false dichotomy of “good” vs “bad” programmers. No, programmers exist on a multidimensional spectrum and performance is contextual.

by dom96 3y ago

iamacyborg 3y ago

Short answer, you don’t. If folks are not providing constructive feedback there’s no reason to pay any attention to what they’re saying.

pjc50 3y ago

Sometimes this makes it easier to deal with them. Do I respect this person's opinions? No. Is there any value in what they've said? Also no. So it's just another piece of spam, garbage, or trolling that we all wade through regularly with the delete key. (The downside of internet fame to anyone is that you will attract far, far more of these people, regardless of what you do.)

dom96 3y ago
> The downside of internet fame to anyone is that you will attract far, far more of these people, regardless of what you do. Yeah... I don't consider myself to have "internet fame" but I suppose I'm well known enough in certain large communities that I've managed to attract these people. I've ended up leaving the communities where these people are active, but I have seen evidence that they continue to spout lies about me there. I often wonder if people just take what they say at face value. The urge is to stay in those communities and correct the record at every opportunity to defend my reputation, but that takes a huge amount of effort and sanity to deal with. Is the advice in these situations to simply ignore and forget?
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  It seems to me that there are two cases here. In the first case, the community is healthy. In that case, someone spouting lies about someone who isn't even there anymore is going to look rather odd, especially if you had a history and a track record there. It has a good chance of not getting much traction, and it might get some pushback from the community. In this case you have a fair chance of being able to successfully leave your reputation in the community's hands. In the second case, the community is toxic. The lies are believed, and even amplified by others. Your reputation there is toast. You could go back and fight for your reputation, but if you did, you'd be likely to lose, and the attempt would eat up your time and emotional stability. In either case, just walking away and ignoring it is about as good a strategy as you can find. Note well: I am a random nobody on the net. I don't have a reputation online, except under pseudonyms, so I am talking about what I do not actually know. (Yes, I am aware of one person online who defamed my real-life identity. They were obscure enough, and their rant was obviously unhinged enough, that I felt no actual harm from just ignoring it.)
  - dom96 3y ago
    What you say makes sense and matches what my own thoughts around this subject have been. It definitely helps to hear it reaffirmed by others, so thank you.

tbrownaw 3y ago

> i.e. they want to attribute any perceived problem with your work as it meaning you are a bad programmer. Not taking that personally is far tougher. I know enough that I can tell if it's preference (say, linting style) or misguided (for example there's some wrong advice floating around that multiple returns are inherently bad) or something I actually missed, and in that last case usually how much of an issue it actually is and whether it's a new topic to learn or something I forgot or something I deliberately didn't bother with.

latexr 3y ago

> This works well in professional settings, but falls apart in certain online communities. If you’re part of an online community where bad intentions are the norm, I’d recommend moving on to another. Why spend your time with a group that frequently makes you feel bad on purpose? > How do you deal with people that don't have positive intentions, but actually have the precise opposite intentions You move on to the third paragraph. Either ignore it (that can be tough, but the sooner you let it go and continue with your day the easier it becomes) or respectfully point out the problem. Try to have them not take it personally lest they become defensive and double down. The goal is deescalation. Speak specifically to the content of their message instead of them as a person. Use a variation of assuming good intentions: assume they are normally a good and reasonable person who is having a bad day and lashed out once. Empathise. Give them an out to apologise for their behaviour and they often will. When that doesn’t work, reread your reply. Was it respectful and imbued with good intentions? Is it clear the goal was to improve the discourse? If not, learn from it and try again in another situation. But if you feel you did the best you could and the other party is being intransigent, let it go. Feel good about your effort. Even if you were unsuccessful with that particular individual, other people reading the exchange may take something positive out of it. Be sure to never reply in anger. That only generates more conflict and ruins your day further. There’s no point to that.

dom96 3y ago
> If you’re part of an online community where bad intentions are the norm, I’d recommend moving on to another. Why spend your time with a group that frequently makes you feel bad on purpose? Indeed, that's precisely what I ended up doing after what has been ~3 years of trying to make the community better. What's somewhat interesting is that it seems the community in question went downhill as soon as the pandemic started, the underlying issue was a lack of serious moderation and an unwillingness of the powers that be to introduce it and while that was okay for many years, once a critical mass of people with bad intentions arrived the environment just became toxic because they were largely unchecked.
pm215 3y ago
Right; and in communities where bad intentions are not the norm, usually there's some sort of moderation/escalation path/group of people you can go to for a second opinion, to ask "am I misreading this, or is this person being unnecessarily combative/abusive/whatever?". Those people can then look at it from a neutral point of view and tell the other person "hey, knock it off/tone it down a bit/whatever", which is usually all you need if it is a "just having a bad day" scenario. Or if there's a developing pattern of bad behaviour they can take further measures.

2devnull 3y ago

“you are a bad programmer” There it is: the false dichotomy of “good” vs “bad” programmers. No, programmers exist on a multidimensional spectrum and performance is contextual.