6 ms·

We need the equivalent of tl;dr for concise communication, for intellectual mood, to mean "Disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but declining to engage." M

We need the equivalent of tl;dr for concise communication, for intellectual mood, to mean "Disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but declining to engage." Maybe "Thanks but no"? And it should be present anyplace there's a Like button. There should also be a way for the writer to get a sense for whether it's coming from people whose judgment they respect. (And (someday maybe) also a way to offer to compensate someone for their time, if they'll explain.) But all of this is predicated on social media remaining viable.

dullcrisp 3y ago
I usually wind up using sarcasm for this purpose (and perhaps to make a brief point). I’m not suggesting that everyone use sarcasm with abandon, but I think it has its place. I appreciate the need for clarity in writing, but I worry that our idealization of workmanlike language greatly narrows the range of what we can convey. People have been communicating in writing for centuries and have invented a wealth of literary devices to communicate their thoughts more completely.
- metabagel 3y ago
  I try to avoid sarcasm. I try to respond dispassionately and to pick one key part of their argument and say why I disagree with it. Or if I think they are being unhelpful with their tone, I tell them so. I do use sarcasm sometimes, but I feel like it is generally an attempt to score a win in an argument, not to persuade. And I’m not generally trying to persuade the person I am responding to, but the lurkers who read the comments.
  - dullcrisp 3y ago
    Isn’t “winning” an argument the same as making your point in a way that most dispassionate third-party observers would agree with you? I usually hear the dichotomy between winning and persuasion used to mean persuading the person you’re talking to, which might involve weakening your point to appeal to them.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      "Winning" depends on what your goal is. I dont think that impressing third parties is really a healthy or useful goal for internet discourse. Omniscient/logical third-parties dont exist and the esteem of anonymous peers is hollow, so it usually reduces to self-aggrandizement and ego-stroking. I dont even think it is helpful to approach discourse as arguments. The best approach IMHO is to strive for a mutual exchange of information. Of course, this runs counter to most intuitive behaviors. As a result, you rarely see people asking questions to the opposition, aside from sarcasm, or Socratic debate. Do you think persuasion is more valuable than being persuaded?
      - dullcrisp 3y ago
        I don’t think I can persuade someone away from one of their core values. Best I can do is put ideas out there and hope to make some impression on someone. That said, treating discussions as a mutual exchange of information is precisely the thing that I find insufficient (outside the literal sense in which everything is a mere exchange of information). Discussion is about persuasion and collective decision making. You can’t find truth and seek agreement just by collecting more data. Rationalists seem to have the sense that we’re all just on the cusp of enlightenment, if we only had a bit more information. They refuse to accept the world as the messy and confusing thing that it is. But as I said, that’s not a point of view that I can dissuade anyone from directly. You can only sway people who aren’t personally invested in the subject. Edit: Since you asked about being persuaded, I find that that my views change slowly and naturally as I think through the points I’m making and experience different things. Of course if someone could set me straight though an internet comment box that would be a great shortcut, but since we’ve all formed our points of view through a lifetime of experience it usually doesn’t work that way.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think we see eye-to eye on a couple things, and disagree on others. I agree most people's core values only shift slowly over time. However, most topics of discussion or debate are not about core values themselves. they are about loosely related topics bound by layers of assumptions and beliefs. This is where information sharing is important, and fundamental to learning. I don't know that anyone can find truth without a process of learning. On the other-hand, I don't see collective decision making and persuasion as a route to truth or learning at all. I agree that rationalist oversimplify, and think that is basically because they already hold utilitarianism as a fundamental axiom. That said, I think the objective of being "less wrong" is a pretty good one. I'm not sure what humanity is left with if we give up on truth or accuracy a mutual objective of discussion.
bluefirebrand 3y ago
> "Disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but declining to engage." Unfortunately this is still engaging, and many people I've encountered online will not let things go after this. It's why people instead use downvotes for disagreement, I think. It lets them take a disagreeing action, but without anyone being able to single them out and rage at them all day for it (which is unfortunately common on social media) I often find that if I disagree with someone and then don't want to engage further, I have to mute or block them entirely so they don't shit up my notifications for hours, each one a small little temptation to go re-engage.
- thimkerbell 3y ago
  i disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but am declining to engage
- dotnet00 3y ago
  This is why I appreciate that HN doesn't do notifications. Sometimes I'm just looking to share my opinion without really being interested in argument or discussion. So it's nice to not be bugged by notifications.
- 6510 3y ago
  I cant imagine having any kind of discussion without the other(s) disagreeing. I desire to completely understand how someone came to the opposite conclusion. I equate anger in the process with brainwashing: You convince the person of the nonsense then you finish the job by training them to not take in further information. Getting angry is the best kind of closed mind. (I get angry too of course! It's hilarious!) Communication takes [at least] 2 people, it takes effort. Ideally both parties make the effort but I don't mind compensating for other peoples shortcomings. It also helps to know nearly all things people think they know are extreme simplifications. (great pun) There is enough fuzzy logic to be wrong about almost anything. 1000 years from now, things we consider fact will be a laughing stock. It will be as funny as Jesus landing his space ship on the white house lawn.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
What would the ultimate goal of this be? I don't really see people reassessing their beliefs based on the number of down votes they get - even if some down voters are respected. Maybe Im missing something, because your idea, sans id's, sounds like what sites like HN or reddit already have.
- thimkerbell 3y ago
  The "someone wrong on internet" urge to weigh in (and not have your silence be misinterpreted) gets sated. And the recipient gets some feedback.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think there is a lot to unpack there, especially regarding if that is a good urge to indulge, and if silence should be viewed in that light. That said, what do you think about the idea that many sites already have what you described, including this one.

dullcrisp 3y ago

I usually wind up using sarcasm for this purpose (and perhaps to make a brief point). I’m not suggesting that everyone use sarcasm with abandon, but I think it has its place. I appreciate the need for clarity in writing, but I worry that our idealization of workmanlike language greatly narrows the range of what we can convey. People have been communicating in writing for centuries and have invented a wealth of literary devices to communicate their thoughts more completely.

metabagel 3y ago
I try to avoid sarcasm. I try to respond dispassionately and to pick one key part of their argument and say why I disagree with it. Or if I think they are being unhelpful with their tone, I tell them so. I do use sarcasm sometimes, but I feel like it is generally an attempt to score a win in an argument, not to persuade. And I’m not generally trying to persuade the person I am responding to, but the lurkers who read the comments.
- dullcrisp 3y ago
  Isn’t “winning” an argument the same as making your point in a way that most dispassionate third-party observers would agree with you? I usually hear the dichotomy between winning and persuasion used to mean persuading the person you’re talking to, which might involve weakening your point to appeal to them.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    "Winning" depends on what your goal is. I dont think that impressing third parties is really a healthy or useful goal for internet discourse. Omniscient/logical third-parties dont exist and the esteem of anonymous peers is hollow, so it usually reduces to self-aggrandizement and ego-stroking. I dont even think it is helpful to approach discourse as arguments. The best approach IMHO is to strive for a mutual exchange of information. Of course, this runs counter to most intuitive behaviors. As a result, you rarely see people asking questions to the opposition, aside from sarcasm, or Socratic debate. Do you think persuasion is more valuable than being persuaded?
    - dullcrisp 3y ago
      I don’t think I can persuade someone away from one of their core values. Best I can do is put ideas out there and hope to make some impression on someone. That said, treating discussions as a mutual exchange of information is precisely the thing that I find insufficient (outside the literal sense in which everything is a mere exchange of information). Discussion is about persuasion and collective decision making. You can’t find truth and seek agreement just by collecting more data. Rationalists seem to have the sense that we’re all just on the cusp of enlightenment, if we only had a bit more information. They refuse to accept the world as the messy and confusing thing that it is. But as I said, that’s not a point of view that I can dissuade anyone from directly. You can only sway people who aren’t personally invested in the subject. Edit: Since you asked about being persuaded, I find that that my views change slowly and naturally as I think through the points I’m making and experience different things. Of course if someone could set me straight though an internet comment box that would be a great shortcut, but since we’ve all formed our points of view through a lifetime of experience it usually doesn’t work that way.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think we see eye-to eye on a couple things, and disagree on others. I agree most people's core values only shift slowly over time. However, most topics of discussion or debate are not about core values themselves. they are about loosely related topics bound by layers of assumptions and beliefs. This is where information sharing is important, and fundamental to learning. I don't know that anyone can find truth without a process of learning. On the other-hand, I don't see collective decision making and persuasion as a route to truth or learning at all. I agree that rationalist oversimplify, and think that is basically because they already hold utilitarianism as a fundamental axiom. That said, I think the objective of being "less wrong" is a pretty good one. I'm not sure what humanity is left with if we give up on truth or accuracy a mutual objective of discussion.

bluefirebrand 3y ago

> "Disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but declining to engage." Unfortunately this is still engaging, and many people I've encountered online will not let things go after this. It's why people instead use downvotes for disagreement, I think. It lets them take a disagreeing action, but without anyone being able to single them out and rage at them all day for it (which is unfortunately common on social media) I often find that if I disagree with someone and then don't want to engage further, I have to mute or block them entirely so they don't shit up my notifications for hours, each one a small little temptation to go re-engage.

thimkerbell 3y ago
i disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but am declining to engage
dotnet00 3y ago
This is why I appreciate that HN doesn't do notifications. Sometimes I'm just looking to share my opinion without really being interested in argument or discussion. So it's nice to not be bugged by notifications.
6510 3y ago
I cant imagine having any kind of discussion without the other(s) disagreeing. I desire to completely understand how someone came to the opposite conclusion. I equate anger in the process with brainwashing: You convince the person of the nonsense then you finish the job by training them to not take in further information. Getting angry is the best kind of closed mind. (I get angry too of course! It's hilarious!) Communication takes [at least] 2 people, it takes effort. Ideally both parties make the effort but I don't mind compensating for other peoples shortcomings. It also helps to know nearly all things people think they know are extreme simplifications. (great pun) There is enough fuzzy logic to be wrong about almost anything. 1000 years from now, things we consider fact will be a laughing stock. It will be as funny as Jesus landing his space ship on the white house lawn.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

What would the ultimate goal of this be? I don't really see people reassessing their beliefs based on the number of down votes they get - even if some down voters are respected. Maybe Im missing something, because your idea, sans id's, sounds like what sites like HN or reddit already have.

thimkerbell 3y ago
The "someone wrong on internet" urge to weigh in (and not have your silence be misinterpreted) gets sated. And the recipient gets some feedback.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think there is a lot to unpack there, especially regarding if that is a good urge to indulge, and if silence should be viewed in that light. That said, what do you think about the idea that many sites already have what you described, including this one.