4 ms·

I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze on any evidence and debate endlessly that it either in fact reinforces the alien origin, or it's been tampe

I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze on any evidence and debate endlessly that it either in fact reinforces the alien origin, or it's been tampered with, or I don't know, it's been tampered with by aliens. Trusting in evidence and objective reasoning mark us as old people. Today the only 'facts' are social media posts.

david-gpu 3y ago
> I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze [sic] on any evidence A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
- Avshalom 3y ago
  >the people we are talking to are not crackpots I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots. Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you. You may be right about the futility of debating UAPs on HN, in which case, you should probably stop. In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
      - david-gpu 3y ago
        > This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines. A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it. > But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults. In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got: >>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want. >> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots. > [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't. If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
        tptacek 3y ago
        I do. Stop talking about how disappointed you are in particular commenters on the thread, and confine your expression to disappointment in particular comments. If you don't even have to be as performatively "polite" as you've tried to be; you can just come out and directly say what you don't like about the arguments you're responding to.
        david-gpu 3y ago
        Thank you for your feedback. If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang. Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness": > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
bnralt 3y ago
Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy (for instance, pointing out Grusch's claims about Mussolini capturing an alien spacecraft in the 30's and the Vatican helping the U.S. take it), these "neutral" individuals rush to defend the conspiracy theory.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse? In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials. In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation. My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason. I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.

david-gpu 3y ago

> I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze [sic] on any evidence A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.

Avshalom 3y ago
>the people we are talking to are not crackpots I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots. Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you. You may be right about the futility of debating UAPs on HN, in which case, you should probably stop. In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines. A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it. > But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults. In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got: >>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want. >> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots. > [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't. If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        I do. Stop talking about how disappointed you are in particular commenters on the thread, and confine your expression to disappointment in particular comments. If you don't even have to be as performatively "polite" as you've tried to be; you can just come out and directly say what you don't like about the arguments you're responding to.
        david-gpu 3y ago
        Thank you for your feedback. If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang. Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness": > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

bnralt 3y ago

Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy (for instance, pointing out Grusch's claims about Mussolini capturing an alien spacecraft in the 30's and the Vatican helping the U.S. take it), these "neutral" individuals rush to defend the conspiracy theory.

david-gpu 3y ago
> Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse? In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials. In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation. My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason. I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.