3 ms·

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html I think you've combined two meanings in the word hostility: one is to argue and

by 13ren 18y ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html I think you've combined two meanings in the word hostility: one is to argue and debate, i.e. antagonistic or Socratic; the other is to be disrespectful and insulting - aggressive domination, to win by making the other lose. The same with nice as its opposite: one meaning is to approve of anything with no objectivity or truth; the other is to respect others. I agree that challenging people is a good thing (even though it can feel uncomfortable and "not nice"), provided it is done is in a respectful way. I think the key is whether one's goal is to get to the truth and learn and build; or whether one's goal is humiliation to show your superiority. However, it's fraught with danger to evaluate what someone else's goal is, because your interpretation of their intention is necessarily a step distant from the truth about them. But I see many comments on HN that are clearly seem way or the other (the remainder I'm not sure of). I really love being shown I'm wrong by someone who sees more than I do. For the supernatural sense of expanding one's world, it's second only to experience. :-)

unalone 18y ago
Hacker News has turned nasty very recently. I mean, there have always been people who get into furious discussions, but now those are starting to become front-and-center of the site. I think it's in response to the noise the site is getting, but it's annoying nonetheless. I've always defined hostility in a kind of weird way. For me, it's absolute intolerance to new ideas until a good reason is given for them. Which is to say, if somebody suggests something new, the burden of proof is entirely on them to explain themselves, before I'll consider the idea. In return, I assume everybody else works similarly, and post accordingly. It's a policy that leads to people contributing lots of fleshed-out ideas, and it keeps noise way down. Of course, by that definition it's possible to be both hostile and polite. I just see hostility as being a slight notch above debate: in debate, there are two well-defined sides that play off each other. On a site where there can be a wide variety of opinions and ideas, the barrier for entry should be set a wee bit higher.
- 13ren 18y ago
  I can see that would work well for when you're posting. For when you are reading, I guess it keeps your own personal attention uncluttered by noise. It also implies you wouldn't challenge poorly presented ideas, but just ignore them as noise. Interesting. Yeah, I was mainly thinking hostile as opposed to polite.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Depending on how a bad idea is presented, I either downvote (if it's presented without any backup whatsoever, like "Mac users suck") or I ignore. If it's making a case with faulty information, I try to at least correct the information in the post. But I try only to focus on the really relevant threads of conversation, the ones that I have a chance of learning from.

by 13ren 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Hacker News has turned nasty very recently. I mean, there have always been people who get into furious discussions, but now those are starting to become front-and-center of the site. I think it's in response to the noise the site is getting, but it's annoying nonetheless. I've always defined hostility in a kind of weird way. For me, it's absolute intolerance to new ideas until a good reason is given for them. Which is to say, if somebody suggests something new, the burden of proof is entirely on them to explain themselves, before I'll consider the idea. In return, I assume everybody else works similarly, and post accordingly. It's a policy that leads to people contributing lots of fleshed-out ideas, and it keeps noise way down. Of course, by that definition it's possible to be both hostile and polite. I just see hostility as being a slight notch above debate: in debate, there are two well-defined sides that play off each other. On a site where there can be a wide variety of opinions and ideas, the barrier for entry should be set a wee bit higher.

13ren 18y ago
I can see that would work well for when you're posting. For when you are reading, I guess it keeps your own personal attention uncluttered by noise. It also implies you wouldn't challenge poorly presented ideas, but just ignore them as noise. Interesting. Yeah, I was mainly thinking hostile as opposed to polite.
- unalone 18y ago
  Depending on how a bad idea is presented, I either downvote (if it's presented without any backup whatsoever, like "Mac users suck") or I ignore. If it's making a case with faulty information, I try to at least correct the information in the post. But I try only to focus on the really relevant threads of conversation, the ones that I have a chance of learning from.