5 ms·

> That wasn't a simple comment—that was clearly a flamewar comment, guaranteed to produce more of the same and likely worse. I’ve reread my initial comment [0]

> That wasn't a simple comment—that was clearly a flamewar comment, guaranteed to produce more of the same and likely worse. I’ve reread my initial comment [0] probably a couple dozen times (at least) trying to see why it’d be considered a flamewar comment and I just don’t see it. What am I missing? Is it me calling the text I quoted an understatement? Or is it the last part where I object to the consistent negative rhetoric re Elon I see on HN? I have a feeling it might be the latter, since it specifically calls out the community. Do you mind clarifying so I can understand? > You're not being targeted personally and we don't take ideological sides nor care what your (or anyone else's) views are. If other people are breaking the site guidelines too, and their posts don't look moderated, it doesn't follow that moderators have deemed it ok. You’re generally pretty fair from what I’ve seen (and also from communicating with you via email), so I believe you and I appreciate that. Thank you for making that clear though. > […] it's more likely that you (I don't mean you personally—I mean any of us in this position) are underestimating the degree of provocation in what you posted. Fair enough—I’ll keep that in mind moving forward. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40591011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40591011

dang 2y ago
It was mostly this part: "I find it beyond unfortunate that so many in this community constantly feel the need to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments simply because they don’t like the guy, his politics, etc." When I read a sentence like this it breaks down something like the following: I find it beyond unfortunate - pejorative rhetoric so many in this community - "me vs. the mob" is a provocation trope (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20noble%20freethinker%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) constantly feel the need - this is a putdown as well as an assumption about the inner state of the other to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments - more or less fine, except that "belittle" and "downplay" are pejoratives so it adds to the provocation simply because they don’t like the guy - another putdown and imputation of inner state to the other his politics, etc. - ups the ante at the end I know I'm exaggerating quite a bit! I'm sure these interpretations are not what you intended. But this is exactly the sort of exaggeration that takes place in the reader's mind, so if the reader happens to be one of the people who you are criticizing, there's no doubt that all these signals will pack quite a punch, even if it wasn't a punch you intended to land.
- Kye 2y ago
  The "because you don't like the guy..." bit is one that used to set me off pretty reliably. There's a reason I don't like the guy (whatever guy [or gal, or nonbinary pal, etc] is under discussion at the time). It's hard to remember in these discussions that other people have thoughts and feelings and perspectives and fall back on assuming they're just being irrational, or trying to obfuscate their true motives. This is why I'm a fan of this particular guideline: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Maybe my interlocutor is a sniveling suck-up to power driven entirely by fantasies of becoming the next boot on my neck, but we sure aren't going to go anywhere in a discussion if I launch off with that assumption. Especially if I'm wrong.
  - dang 2y ago
    I so agree! That guideline is one of my favorites too. It's a practical way of eliminating the most unnecessary tranches of kerfuffle. I like it so much that I even wrote a mini essay about it a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40602266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40602266.

dang 2y ago

It was mostly this part: "I find it beyond unfortunate that so many in this community constantly feel the need to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments simply because they don’t like the guy, his politics, etc." When I read a sentence like this it breaks down something like the following: I find it beyond unfortunate - pejorative rhetoric so many in this community - "me vs. the mob" is a provocation trope (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20noble%20freethinker%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) constantly feel the need - this is a putdown as well as an assumption about the inner state of the other to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments - more or less fine, except that "belittle" and "downplay" are pejoratives so it adds to the provocation simply because they don’t like the guy - another putdown and imputation of inner state to the other his politics, etc. - ups the ante at the end I know I'm exaggerating quite a bit! I'm sure these interpretations are not what you intended. But this is exactly the sort of exaggeration that takes place in the reader's mind, so if the reader happens to be one of the people who you are criticizing, there's no doubt that all these signals will pack quite a punch, even if it wasn't a punch you intended to land.

Kye 2y ago
The "because you don't like the guy..." bit is one that used to set me off pretty reliably. There's a reason I don't like the guy (whatever guy [or gal, or nonbinary pal, etc] is under discussion at the time). It's hard to remember in these discussions that other people have thoughts and feelings and perspectives and fall back on assuming they're just being irrational, or trying to obfuscate their true motives. This is why I'm a fan of this particular guideline: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Maybe my interlocutor is a sniveling suck-up to power driven entirely by fantasies of becoming the next boot on my neck, but we sure aren't going to go anywhere in a discussion if I launch off with that assumption. Especially if I'm wrong.
- dang 2y ago
  I so agree! That guideline is one of my favorites too. It's a practical way of eliminating the most unnecessary tranches of kerfuffle. I like it so much that I even wrote a mini essay about it a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40602266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40602266.