3 ms·

Meta: well, not sure if it was your goal, but reading your dismissal made me think, "Oh, this HN commenter's pointed out the article is full of crap, so, no nee

Meta: well, not sure if it was your goal, but reading your dismissal made me think, "Oh, this HN commenter's pointed out the article is full of crap, so, no need to attribute this to climate change, then.".. luckily another part of my brain said, "Wait a minute, why are you defaulting to thinking that HN commenter knows what he's talking about?!".

sokoloff 3y ago
For me, once I realize that an article has specifically intended to deceive me (whether by exaggeration or misdirection), I don’t spend time further evaluating or even consuming what they were trying to say. You could have a solid argument underlying your exaggeration and I just don’t care. Once you’ve intentionally deceived, I stop paying attention to you. You don’t lose just the detected deceitful part of your argument; you lose it all. In that regard, whether or not the HN commenter knows anything about the underlying issue doesn’t matter. If they correctly clue me in to the deception, I don’t read the article.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  That’s a shame. The writers of articles usually are not the writers of headlines. Yet you implicate the writer in the deception of the copywriter.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    The writers of articles have far more per-capita influence over headlines than the readers do. If they want to maximize the reach and value of their work, they should exercise that influence. Meanwhile, I'm doing my best by exercising the only influence that I have in the situation: hitting the X.
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      On the contrary, they have identical per capita influence: 0. At least as far as I understand how newspapers, magazines, etc. work. Blog writers? Sure.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        Writers work for publishers. If a publisher writes misleading headlines, causing your work to be devalued, don’t work with them. If you keep working with them, you’re financially benefiting from and thereby complicit in their deceit.
        dmvdoug 3y ago
        I mean, that’s about as facile a claim as can be made. Sounds great in theory but in reality people working in print media don’t exactly have an expanding field full of opportunities for work.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Which brings us back to them being part of a system which is deceiving readers for financial gain. Hardly something that I feel a compulsion or obligation to support, even if only half of the partnership is directly involved in lying.
        dmvdoug 3y ago
        Yeah. So, if you were actually consistent in this stance, I don’t see how you could participate in really any piece of the modern economy. But I suspect you’re not consistent in this stance. I suspect it just bothers you more in this domain than others. But then, it’s normal for us humans to dress up our emotional responses in principled justifications.

sokoloff 3y ago

For me, once I realize that an article has specifically intended to deceive me (whether by exaggeration or misdirection), I don’t spend time further evaluating or even consuming what they were trying to say. You could have a solid argument underlying your exaggeration and I just don’t care. Once you’ve intentionally deceived, I stop paying attention to you. You don’t lose just the detected deceitful part of your argument; you lose it all. In that regard, whether or not the HN commenter knows anything about the underlying issue doesn’t matter. If they correctly clue me in to the deception, I don’t read the article.

dmvdoug 3y ago
That’s a shame. The writers of articles usually are not the writers of headlines. Yet you implicate the writer in the deception of the copywriter.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  The writers of articles have far more per-capita influence over headlines than the readers do. If they want to maximize the reach and value of their work, they should exercise that influence. Meanwhile, I'm doing my best by exercising the only influence that I have in the situation: hitting the X.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    On the contrary, they have identical per capita influence: 0. At least as far as I understand how newspapers, magazines, etc. work. Blog writers? Sure.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Writers work for publishers. If a publisher writes misleading headlines, causing your work to be devalued, don’t work with them. If you keep working with them, you’re financially benefiting from and thereby complicit in their deceit.
      - dmvdoug 3y ago
        I mean, that’s about as facile a claim as can be made. Sounds great in theory but in reality people working in print media don’t exactly have an expanding field full of opportunities for work.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Which brings us back to them being part of a system which is deceiving readers for financial gain. Hardly something that I feel a compulsion or obligation to support, even if only half of the partnership is directly involved in lying.
        dmvdoug 3y ago
        Yeah. So, if you were actually consistent in this stance, I don’t see how you could participate in really any piece of the modern economy. But I suspect you’re not consistent in this stance. I suspect it just bothers you more in this domain than others. But then, it’s normal for us humans to dress up our emotional responses in principled justifications.