2 ms·
And I would prefer to live in a world where people can say what they mean, without having to censor or sugarcoat their speech because someone else prefers not t
by bheadmaster 3y ago
And I would prefer to live in a world where people can say what they mean, without having to censor or sugarcoat their speech because someone else prefers not to hear their words.
Different people have different preferences. Can't you just leave it at that? Why do you have to go around telling people not to say stuff you dislike in a public forum?
- igor47 3y agoIf you truly believe what you just wrote, why did you write it? Didn't you, in effect, dislike what I said and tell me not to say it? The whole point of forums is to productively disagree and hopefully learn something. It's not sugar coating to avoid being casually mean or dismissive -- it's advancing the very reason we're supposedly here.
- Jensson 3y agoOriginal attacked a concept, you attacked an individual. Don't equate the two. The first person who starts to attack an individual will be told to stop, that is the only reasonable way to make people stop attacking individuals so we can argue freely.
- raffraffraff 3y agoOh snap. I just said a long-winded version of the same (didn't see because HN is gloriously old-fashioned)
- bheadmaster 3y agoI couldn't have said it better. Thank you for the eloquent explanation.
- raffraffraff 3y agoI don't normally get into this type of conversation, and I don't mean to pile-on either, but I think that the target of the dismissiveness is a distinction worth pointing out. The post that you originally replied to was dismissive about some mindfulness techniques. You made it more personal, accusing the poster of being dismissive. This is directed at a person. It's less abstract, and their more likely to cause offence or annoyance. My general rule is that I try to have thicker skin when it comes to assaults on ideas, and be careful not to offend persons.