6 ms·

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not o

by wrp 3y ago

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as the rest. These are pretty much the rules I've adopted for posting on HN.

tayo42 3y ago
how did you come up with number 9 from this post? fwiw, all the people who dont read the articles, 9 isnt in there. its actually "set some boundaries"
- wrp 3y ago
  Fair criticism. I should have been more clear.
tristor 3y ago
Number 9 isn't there, and in my personal interactions right here on HN, Julie doesn't ignore people who challenge her viewpoint. She says "Set Some Boundaries" and in fact doing so is not only necessary, it's healthy. Setting boundaries, even blocking people, is not the same as ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint. You can be challenged without the challenger being an asshole, there's no point in engaging with assholes and you should absolutely block them.
- hirundo 3y ago
  It's a Russell Conjugation: "I'm setting boundaries, you're ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint, they're denying my existence."
n4r9 3y ago
I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald Mosley.
- wrp 3y ago
  I did editorialize on #9 because I wanted to draw attention to it and get some discussion. My feeling is that her take is not entirely healthy.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    It's more than healthy; it's mandatory. In the Internet, we have built an unlimited stream of information. You could quit your job and do nothing but post and reply full-time, and you'd never get near being able to respond to every commenter if everyone who read what you wrote chose to comment. Filtering signal from noise is a vital skill in the online era. And sure, if your filter is over-tight you'll end up in an echo chamber... But as there's no penalty for being wrong on the Internet, a healthy filter is downsampling a lot of information these days.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    OK I see. Well, my input is that it goes beyond editorialisation to misrepresentation for the reasons I outline above! Imo enforcing appropriate boundaries is good for one's mental health and relationships. And I think the boundary she describes - ignoring tangential, agenda-driven comments - is absolutely appropriate.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
zer8k 3y ago
Up/down vote systems, especially ones that punish the poster quickly by rendering their post unreadable, create a hivemind of people who agree. HN posters LOVE to point out the fact it's "not like Reddit" when, in fact, it is. If you say something factual but disagreeable with the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy) you will be met with downvotes. Even a small amount begins to add up until eventually your account is auto-dead (shadowbanned). This is especially bad because each downvote is not required to have a retort. Since the downvoter is not subject to the same rules it can happen freely and without consequence. New accounts are most susceptible to this. It's often better to post extremely agreeable, astroturfed, opinions just to collect enough internet points to protect you from driveby downvoting later. The result is a hivemind no different than Reddit. People here are just as afraid to post their opinions on language/framework/policy as they are on Reddit. None of these rules matter because the assailant (downvoter) can do what they do best without consequence. At least in a meatspace debate/talk/whatever the disagreeing party must reveal themselves to make a case.
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  HN is a forum attached to a venture capitalist company. The idea that it is in any way left-leaning is farcical.
  - smartscience 3y ago
    Any way? There are left-leaning social positions that would be entirely expected from a modern tech-focused VC company. I support those causes and positions to various extents (if not always their approach to advocacy and addressing other viewpoints), but they're still left leaning.
  - zer8k 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
      Greta Christina has an excellent article about why "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is mostly nonsense. Fiscally conservative means socially conservative in almost every way that actually matters. https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/here-are-7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-but-socially-liberal-dont-understand/ https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/here-are-7-things-people-wh...
viknesh 3y ago
I think the "shock" at an old man page is pretty silly to begin with, but I think a better phrasing for #9 would be to ignore the trolls. The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad, but that viewed with today's (American) social context, the phrase would likely be taken to be distasteful. Therefore, I think the issue with the commenters isn't that they "challenge" the viewpoint. At a minimum these commenters have failed to grasp the concept and more likely they are simply not responding in good faith. I do think there's a separate discussion to be had about the role of political correctness/word policing in modern discourse, but in the author's version of events, the blocked commenters aren't trying to make that argument.
- ant6n 3y ago
  "The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad" That's because many people in tech used to think that tech bro culture wasn't bad. Tech also used to be much very excluding. Back then, if you were not part of the tech bro culture, you already knew it was distasteful, and that you were being excluded.
  - TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
    Nah. In this case it genuinely wasn't intended to be bad (almost certainly). We can tell because the sexual meaning of grope makes absolutely no sense in the context of `dig`, while the non-sexual meaning does. We can exonerate the original authors. It's still good that it's been changed since.

by wrp 3y ago

tayo42 3y ago

how did you come up with number 9 from this post? fwiw, all the people who dont read the articles, 9 isnt in there. its actually "set some boundaries"

wrp 3y ago
Fair criticism. I should have been more clear.

tristor 3y ago

Number 9 isn't there, and in my personal interactions right here on HN, Julie doesn't ignore people who challenge her viewpoint. She says "Set Some Boundaries" and in fact doing so is not only necessary, it's healthy. Setting boundaries, even blocking people, is not the same as ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint. You can be challenged without the challenger being an asshole, there's no point in engaging with assholes and you should absolutely block them.

hirundo 3y ago
It's a Russell Conjugation: "I'm setting boundaries, you're ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint, they're denying my existence."

n4r9 3y ago

I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald Mosley.

wrp 3y ago
I did editorialize on #9 because I wanted to draw attention to it and get some discussion. My feeling is that her take is not entirely healthy.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's more than healthy; it's mandatory. In the Internet, we have built an unlimited stream of information. You could quit your job and do nothing but post and reply full-time, and you'd never get near being able to respond to every commenter if everyone who read what you wrote chose to comment. Filtering signal from noise is a vital skill in the online era. And sure, if your filter is over-tight you'll end up in an echo chamber... But as there's no penalty for being wrong on the Internet, a healthy filter is downsampling a lot of information these days.
- n4r9 3y ago
  OK I see. Well, my input is that it goes beyond editorialisation to misrepresentation for the reasons I outline above! Imo enforcing appropriate boundaries is good for one's mental health and relationships. And I think the boundary she describes - ignoring tangential, agenda-driven comments - is absolutely appropriate.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

zer8k 3y ago

Up/down vote systems, especially ones that punish the poster quickly by rendering their post unreadable, create a hivemind of people who agree. HN posters LOVE to point out the fact it's "not like Reddit" when, in fact, it is. If you say something factual but disagreeable with the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy) you will be met with downvotes. Even a small amount begins to add up until eventually your account is auto-dead (shadowbanned). This is especially bad because each downvote is not required to have a retort. Since the downvoter is not subject to the same rules it can happen freely and without consequence. New accounts are most susceptible to this. It's often better to post extremely agreeable, astroturfed, opinions just to collect enough internet points to protect you from driveby downvoting later. The result is a hivemind no different than Reddit. People here are just as afraid to post their opinions on language/framework/policy as they are on Reddit. None of these rules matter because the assailant (downvoter) can do what they do best without consequence. At least in a meatspace debate/talk/whatever the disagreeing party must reveal themselves to make a case.

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
HN is a forum attached to a venture capitalist company. The idea that it is in any way left-leaning is farcical.
- smartscience 3y ago
  Any way? There are left-leaning social positions that would be entirely expected from a modern tech-focused VC company. I support those causes and positions to various extents (if not always their approach to advocacy and addressing other viewpoints), but they're still left leaning.
- zer8k 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
    Greta Christina has an excellent article about why "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is mostly nonsense. Fiscally conservative means socially conservative in almost every way that actually matters. https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/here-are-7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-but-socially-liberal-dont-understand/ https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/here-are-7-things-people-wh...

viknesh 3y ago

I think the "shock" at an old man page is pretty silly to begin with, but I think a better phrasing for #9 would be to ignore the trolls. The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad, but that viewed with today's (American) social context, the phrase would likely be taken to be distasteful. Therefore, I think the issue with the commenters isn't that they "challenge" the viewpoint. At a minimum these commenters have failed to grasp the concept and more likely they are simply not responding in good faith. I do think there's a separate discussion to be had about the role of political correctness/word policing in modern discourse, but in the author's version of events, the blocked commenters aren't trying to make that argument.

ant6n 3y ago
"The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad" That's because many people in tech used to think that tech bro culture wasn't bad. Tech also used to be much very excluding. Back then, if you were not part of the tech bro culture, you already knew it was distasteful, and that you were being excluded.
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  Nah. In this case it genuinely wasn't intended to be bad (almost certainly). We can tell because the sexual meaning of grope makes absolutely no sense in the context of `dig`, while the non-sexual meaning does. We can exonerate the original authors. It's still good that it's been changed since.