3 ms·

This was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. The user in question was obviously either engaging in bad faith or could not be bothered to read bac

This was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. The user in question was obviously either engaging in bad faith or could not be bothered to read back for ~15 seconds to understand the context of my post. When I pointed this out to them, they doubled down. They were not just wrong, in my personal opinion or objectively in whatever sense---they wasted my time and insulted me. Speaking of pointing the above out, why is this comment flagged? Is this considered a personal attack too? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37677835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37677835 --- You can see from my other comments in this thread that I prefer to engage respectfully with other commenters, even ones I disagree with, and I believe my total commenting history going back to 2016 will reflect that I do in fact take the intended spirit of the site to heart. But if speaking forthrightly to a bad faith and/or willfully ignorant interlocutor like this user drags me down to their level in your view, you ought to ban me right now. Thanks.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
> You need to work on your reading comprehension. To which you state > This was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.
dang 3y ago
Statements of fact can be personal attacks. Here's an example I've mentioned a few times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20acne&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you find yourself inspecting someone else's comments or behavior for how much bad faith you perceive, or what they couldn't be bothered to do, or anything of the "who said what" variety, you've already fallen off the path of curiosity* and this is a clear sign that you should refrain from posting. That's not a criticism—it happens to all of us and it takes work and practice to avoid it. But it's work we all have to do as a community, if HN is to last for its intended purpose. (Btw that's also the answer to why 37677835 was flagged - it wasn't a personal attack but it was a step off the garden path and into the weeds.) When a commenter uses phrases like "bad faith" or "willfully ignorant" or "down to their level' about another commenter, it's usually a sign that they're too activated by a conversation to really practice the principle "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) In such a case it is better to refrain from posting until you no longer feel that way. Why? because you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) are not functioning in the range of curiosity when you feel that way—it's impossible; and second, if you reply with what feels to you like "speaking forthrightly" in that moment, you're likely to post things that land with the other commenter, and also the general reader, as attacks, not to mention get replied to by moderators asking you not to post that way. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- caconym_ 3y ago
  A statement becomes a personal attack when it's intended as an attack, not simply because it's hurtful to the recipient. For instance, (addressing the pg example you mentioned elsewhere) it's not generally a personal attack when an old and/or sick person's doctor says they have a few months left at best, though hearing it will probably upset them. It's likely (though absolutely not certain!) that one middle schooler pointing out another's acne intends for it to be hurtful, but I don't think you could reasonably blame a very small child for pointing out the same—though it would certainly be a teachable moment. Semantics aside, I understand from experience how difficult it is to moderate situations like this, but as a user-privileged participant in any discussion I reserve the right to defend myself (e.g.) when somebody rolls out some half-baked strawman and then accuses me of going off topic. In this case I find it particularly ironic that in a thread full of completely baseless character attacks against Miculas, the author of the linked article (e.g. he just wants credit so he can put it on his resume), I'm the one who gets threatened with a ban for questioning that narrative and not then meekly rolling over for the ensuing tide of bullshit. If you want to see a real, unequivocal, totally one-sided personal attack, you need look no further than the original comment I replied to^[1], and you can't throw a stone from there without hitting another one. I note that those comments remain largely unflagged, which is not a surprise given how acutely vulnerable users of platforms like HN are to the bandwagon effect and similar biases. My behavior in this regard is not going to change, but my experience in this thread is certainly raising some questions. ^[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37676623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37676623
  - dang 3y ago
    If you don't like the phrase "personal attack", I can put it this way instead: please don't post pejoratives using personal language. In the context of moderating an internet forum, we have to go by effects, not intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., for a number of reasons: (1) intent isn't observable or predictable; (2) effects are both observable and predictable; and (3) it's effects which ruin threads. Everyone always feels like they're the one being singled out and treated unfairly—this isn't a reliable feeling, it's a universal bias. If other comments broke the site guidelines as badly as you did, and the mods didn't say anything, that's because we didn't see them, not because we're against you. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

that_guy_iain 3y ago

> You need to work on your reading comprehension. To which you state > This was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

dang 3y ago

Statements of fact can be personal attacks. Here's an example I've mentioned a few times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20acne&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you find yourself inspecting someone else's comments or behavior for how much bad faith you perceive, or what they couldn't be bothered to do, or anything of the "who said what" variety, you've already fallen off the path of curiosity* and this is a clear sign that you should refrain from posting. That's not a criticism—it happens to all of us and it takes work and practice to avoid it. But it's work we all have to do as a community, if HN is to last for its intended purpose. (Btw that's also the answer to why 37677835 was flagged - it wasn't a personal attack but it was a step off the garden path and into the weeds.) When a commenter uses phrases like "bad faith" or "willfully ignorant" or "down to their level' about another commenter, it's usually a sign that they're too activated by a conversation to really practice the principle "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) In such a case it is better to refrain from posting until you no longer feel that way. Why? because you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) are not functioning in the range of curiosity when you feel that way—it's impossible; and second, if you reply with what feels to you like "speaking forthrightly" in that moment, you're likely to post things that land with the other commenter, and also the general reader, as attacks, not to mention get replied to by moderators asking you not to post that way. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

caconym_ 3y ago
A statement becomes a personal attack when it's intended as an attack, not simply because it's hurtful to the recipient. For instance, (addressing the pg example you mentioned elsewhere) it's not generally a personal attack when an old and/or sick person's doctor says they have a few months left at best, though hearing it will probably upset them. It's likely (though absolutely not certain!) that one middle schooler pointing out another's acne intends for it to be hurtful, but I don't think you could reasonably blame a very small child for pointing out the same—though it would certainly be a teachable moment. Semantics aside, I understand from experience how difficult it is to moderate situations like this, but as a user-privileged participant in any discussion I reserve the right to defend myself (e.g.) when somebody rolls out some half-baked strawman and then accuses me of going off topic. In this case I find it particularly ironic that in a thread full of completely baseless character attacks against Miculas, the author of the linked article (e.g. he just wants credit so he can put it on his resume), I'm the one who gets threatened with a ban for questioning that narrative and not then meekly rolling over for the ensuing tide of bullshit. If you want to see a real, unequivocal, totally one-sided personal attack, you need look no further than the original comment I replied to^[1], and you can't throw a stone from there without hitting another one. I note that those comments remain largely unflagged, which is not a surprise given how acutely vulnerable users of platforms like HN are to the bandwagon effect and similar biases. My behavior in this regard is not going to change, but my experience in this thread is certainly raising some questions. ^[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37676623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37676623
- dang 3y ago
  If you don't like the phrase "personal attack", I can put it this way instead: please don't post pejoratives using personal language. In the context of moderating an internet forum, we have to go by effects, not intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., for a number of reasons: (1) intent isn't observable or predictable; (2) effects are both observable and predictable; and (3) it's effects which ruin threads. Everyone always feels like they're the one being singled out and treated unfairly—this isn't a reliable feeling, it's a universal bias. If other comments broke the site guidelines as badly as you did, and the mods didn't say anything, that's because we didn't see them, not because we're against you. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...