3 ms·

For you it seems to be all about having a nice site. For me it's about having a nice world in which people can enjoy intellectual curiosity without being monstr

For you it seems to be all about having a nice site. For me it's about having a nice world in which people can enjoy intellectual curiosity without being monstrously guilty for it. > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country. This is right now. And this is HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38833350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38833350 Given how dedicated large sectors of the US tech industry are to silencing discussion, I can only say, I'll think about it. I might prefer to take my leave from this site than participating in it, to preserve something more valuable, more fundamental, while you explore this local optimum of discussion within a framework of normalizing genocide and sophistry with generous helpings of plausible deniability.

dang 3y ago
> For you it seems I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel. I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic. Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an important topic means that it's ok to let loose on others—because after all, they're right (as they see it), it's an important topic, and they feel strongly. Actually the opposite is the case, and as I tried to point out, you discredit your own views by behaving this way. I know it isn't easy but it is possible to make your substantive points without name-calling, personal attack, or flamewar.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly. Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair. I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to start or prolong them in your mind. When someone says something I consider incorrect, I refute it. Yeah, I added a lot of extra here I guess, but even without that, long comments with a bunch of quotes and links tend to be my thing. FWIW, they tend to be a LOT longer first draft, if you can believe that. As much snark or passion may have remained in some, it's not that I'm not trying at all. If that (long comments and not letting someone have the last word unless I agree or we're going in circles) is considered "flamewar" I can't help it and must plead guilty and unrepentant and be removed. No hard feelings, either. But I honestly I don't understand why "too much activity" becomes a problem for you, even on day old threads -- or if it even does, I don't really grok you in that regard. But that's been my impression, as if you think it takes away from discussion of other topics? During times like these, just like, say, when Appelbaum got cancelled, I do kind of get this thing that Brecht described, where you feel you can't discuss innocent topics while this elephant is in the room. At least not endlessly. Unless it's right in my ball park, something else I deeply care about or know a lot about, I pass, I'm not going to read up and learn on something new and then form a comment based on that, as I otherwise might. Just not in the mood. What I'm trying to say is, if I didn't post these comments (minus the personal attacks, but let's call them activist or political and maybe a bit too long) I would post none, I wouldn't post on other subjects instead. But I don't post in random threads and try to make them about the chip on my shoulder, either. That's the best I can do, really. And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied. In other words, it's between consenting adults, and as long as it's really just disagreement and splitting hairs and all that, and not abusive, is that really a problem? Again, other points taken, please don't take this as a long-winded way of say "yes, but" to name-calling and getting personal. It's just your usage of "flamewar" that is hazy to me. To me, flaming someone is name-calling and getting personal, but not a lengthy or "endless" debate as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war The tricky things in society, the ones that matter deeply to people or which they literally need to live, just aren't like programming anecdotes and all that, where people can have different experiences and no friction. Of course you're right in that this means one should take extra care to not add friction, and I'll renew my efforts for that. But I don't think friction as such is always bad. Too much of it is, but having zero is also a red flag IMO.
  - dang 3y ago
    I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that. Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing wrong with that in principle but sometimes people arrive with pre-existing talking points and whatnot and that's not curious conversation—it feels like being recited to tediously. I'd try to avoid that. But if you're relating to what the other person is saying, remaining respectful, and not just copy-pasting, there's no reason that can't be curious conversation, and it certainly doesn't need to be flamewar. Ok I think I made my main points after all so I might not need to come back later :) Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 is also borderline by HN standards, I'm afraid - but would probably be ok without the last sentence. Your comments will be better (for HN) and also more persuasive if you don't use overwrought rhetoric like that.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      > Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow. I honestly do not understand how that sentence could be more concise and clear. If someone reads something as fantastic as me "excusing killing Jews" into that, I have to ask, what in the world gave them that idea. If I said "I'm under the impression you kept your comment short because you wanted to go back to kicking homeless people", and said that in a very polite way as I just quoted it, would you say "oh, that's a misunderstanding"??
      - 3y ago

dang 3y ago

> For you it seems I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel. I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic. Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an important topic means that it's ok to let loose on others—because after all, they're right (as they see it), it's an important topic, and they feel strongly. Actually the opposite is the case, and as I tried to point out, you discredit your own views by behaving this way. I know it isn't easy but it is possible to make your substantive points without name-calling, personal attack, or flamewar.

johnnyworker 3y ago
Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly. Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair. I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to start or prolong them in your mind. When someone says something I consider incorrect, I refute it. Yeah, I added a lot of extra here I guess, but even without that, long comments with a bunch of quotes and links tend to be my thing. FWIW, they tend to be a LOT longer first draft, if you can believe that. As much snark or passion may have remained in some, it's not that I'm not trying at all. If that (long comments and not letting someone have the last word unless I agree or we're going in circles) is considered "flamewar" I can't help it and must plead guilty and unrepentant and be removed. No hard feelings, either. But I honestly I don't understand why "too much activity" becomes a problem for you, even on day old threads -- or if it even does, I don't really grok you in that regard. But that's been my impression, as if you think it takes away from discussion of other topics? During times like these, just like, say, when Appelbaum got cancelled, I do kind of get this thing that Brecht described, where you feel you can't discuss innocent topics while this elephant is in the room. At least not endlessly. Unless it's right in my ball park, something else I deeply care about or know a lot about, I pass, I'm not going to read up and learn on something new and then form a comment based on that, as I otherwise might. Just not in the mood. What I'm trying to say is, if I didn't post these comments (minus the personal attacks, but let's call them activist or political and maybe a bit too long) I would post none, I wouldn't post on other subjects instead. But I don't post in random threads and try to make them about the chip on my shoulder, either. That's the best I can do, really. And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied. In other words, it's between consenting adults, and as long as it's really just disagreement and splitting hairs and all that, and not abusive, is that really a problem? Again, other points taken, please don't take this as a long-winded way of say "yes, but" to name-calling and getting personal. It's just your usage of "flamewar" that is hazy to me. To me, flaming someone is name-calling and getting personal, but not a lengthy or "endless" debate as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war The tricky things in society, the ones that matter deeply to people or which they literally need to live, just aren't like programming anecdotes and all that, where people can have different experiences and no friction. Of course you're right in that this means one should take extra care to not add friction, and I'll renew my efforts for that. But I don't think friction as such is always bad. Too much of it is, but having zero is also a red flag IMO.
- dang 3y ago
  I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that. Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing wrong with that in principle but sometimes people arrive with pre-existing talking points and whatnot and that's not curious conversation—it feels like being recited to tediously. I'd try to avoid that. But if you're relating to what the other person is saying, remaining respectful, and not just copy-pasting, there's no reason that can't be curious conversation, and it certainly doesn't need to be flamewar. Ok I think I made my main points after all so I might not need to come back later :) Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 is also borderline by HN standards, I'm afraid - but would probably be ok without the last sentence. Your comments will be better (for HN) and also more persuasive if you don't use overwrought rhetoric like that.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow. I honestly do not understand how that sentence could be more concise and clear. If someone reads something as fantastic as me "excusing killing Jews" into that, I have to ask, what in the world gave them that idea. If I said "I'm under the impression you kept your comment short because you wanted to go back to kicking homeless people", and said that in a very polite way as I just quoted it, would you say "oh, that's a misunderstanding"??
    - 3y ago