4 ms·

I think Dan's point is that there's never a need to introduce references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits. No matter how self-ev

I think Dan's point is that there's never a need to introduce references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits. No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be.

protomolecule 2y ago
"I think Dan's point is that there's never a need to introduce references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits. No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be." @dang So how comments like this fit the site's guidelines? Btw, that's another account "using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle".
- racional 2y ago
  There's nothing political or nationalistic at all in my comment. My posts refer mostly to historical events, and attempt to correct the various (sometime rather bizarre) cognitive distortions that some people like to hold and promote about them. Along with many much milder and more innocuous misunderstandings. Personally I eschew all forms of nationalism and nationalist rhetoric.
dang 2y ago
> No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be. With this you do exactly what we're asking commenters to avoid doing on HN. It's not as bad as if you were hurling the insult directly at someone, but it's not so different either—as the reply you got demonstrated. The issue isn't that we shouldn't reference each other's nationality—it's that we should be open, curious and respectful with each other, most of all when it comes to divisive topics. When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively or snarkily, that's when it becomes flamebait and a moderation issue. In addition to the above: having just taken a look at your commenting history, it's clear that you've been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. Just as I said to the other users, that's not allowed on HN and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which side you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
- racional 2y ago
  When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively or snarkily, that's when it becomes flamebait and a moderation issue. Can you point to even a single instance where I have done this, please? Meaning -- in reference to the country or its people per se (as opposed to the actions or ideology of the people who happen to be running it; or perhaps entirely reasonable references to what a measured portion of the population might say or think, as can be easily verified by numerous news reports)? If not -- then why are you setting forth the implication that this is something I have done? And lasties -- a lot of postings here (or excerpts from them) are plainly BS. Whether the poster is simply naive, or has less charitable motivations -- there's simply no mistaking it. I totally get that labeling these cases as such continuously makes for bad reading; and of course one should never to so spuriously. But what is so wrong or uncivil (or even "snarky") about pointing out this simple fact, in egregious cases when there's just no ifs, buts or mitigating factors about it? Or is just the fecal labeling? Would you prefer we stick to more G-rated terminology like "nonsense" and "balderdash"? I suppose I could live with that.
  - dang 2y ago
    "self-evidently full of excrement their droppings" seemed both scornful and snarky to me. > a lot of postings here (or excerpts from them) are plainly BS In principle I agree because that's what human beings do, but I don't agree with your word "plainly". That implies that there exists an objective perspective that nearly everyone can easily agree on, as long as they're in good faith. But there's no such perspective—not on divisive topics. The situation is far from that. > But is so wrong or uncivil about pointing out this simple fact What counts as BS vs. not-BS, or true vs. false, is no "simple fact"—it's the core of the hardest problem. If you treat it as a simple fact (for example, "I'll just point out the simple fact that what you said is BS"), you're likely to fall into flamebait without intending to. It's better to explain patiently and respectfully why you believe someone is wrong. That's what we want on HN: to correct false information with true information, and bad arguments with better arguments—always respectfully and assuming good faith. > Whether the poster is simply naive, or has less charitable motivations If there's one thing I've learned it's that internet commenters are much too quick to make assumptions about others' motivations. The trouble is that these assumptions don't feel like assumptions; they just feel like completely-obvious-observations. Of course the other side has their own completely-obvious-observations. This is how we end up with flamewars. The solution is to refrain from making claims about other people's motivations, which you can't know because you don't have direct access to them, and which you're likely to be wrong about because we have so little information about each other from the tiny blobs of text that we're exchanging. Also, humans really dislike having their motivations commented on by others—so even if you've assessed them correctly, it's one of the worst tacks you can take. As a bonus, not doing so will make your comments more likely to be substantive and less likely to break the site guidelines. By the way, I think I noticed a pattern in the following phrases in your comment: "entirely reasonable", "easily verified", "plainly", "simply", "simple fact", "there's just no ifs, buts, or mitigating factors"; as well as "self evident" from your comment above. To me these phrases suggest a belief that the material under discussion is somehow obvious or transparent, and that it's obvious what's true and what's false (at least on certain points—I get that you aren't saying this about everything). When you have that feeling and then you encounter someone who's arguing against that simple/obvious/plain truth, you're almost forced to conclude something about the other person: they must be naive, disingenuous, obtuse—something like that—or maybe they're just dumb or bad. Why else would they deny the obvious? What I'd love to persuade you of is that this is a bad position to be commenting from on the internet (where we know so little about each other and don't have pre-existing relationships). It's likely to make your comments seem dismissive and/or aggressive and/or personal, even as it will feel completely obvious to you that you're "simply" pointing out facts. That's again how we get flamewars. Instead, we all need to realize that the world is a much, much, much bigger place than we thought. There are lots of people out there who have opposite views and feelings to our own, and who therefore have a different idea of what is obvious and transparent. This is not because they're disingenuous, obtuse, or dumb. It's because they have a different background than we do, and a different working set of information. Evolutionarily we're hard-wired towards assuming that other people feel and look and think the same as we do. In the mythical primordial jungle, we didn't encounter many others; and if we did, we probably tried to kill them (and they us). Now suddenly on the internet we're exposed, not just to a few more others, but to all the others: millions of others with totally different backgrounds, information, feelings. When we encounter them, our immediate reflex is the primordial fear of kill-or-be-killed—that's how hard-wiring works. And what is flamewar but the internet version of kill-or-be-killed? What we need to do instead is learn: learn that our existing assumptions, beliefs, feelings are too small for this new situation; learn to pause our first responses rather than reflexively expressing them; learn to look for information that might not be obvious/simple/plain, and to be willing to receive such information from the other. To me this is what Hacker News is about: an experiment in learning from each other, which first means tolerating each other: staying connected long enough to get over the initial response of "what kind of idiot, asshole, or sociopath is this" and move into an openness to "what could be the reasons why this person has such a different sense of what's obvious than I do?" Tolerance is one of the vanilla virtues we all think we're practicing, but actually we've barely begun to realize what it is. Tolerance feels terrible. It means bearing the pressure that the other person is putting on you—just as a beam engineered to a certain tolerance is able to carry so much load without snapping. In human terms, tolerance means being willing to bear the "unpleasant manifestations of others" right up to your snapping point and then letting it stretch your snapping point. Not only is that not easy, it's one of the hardest things a person can do. I ended up writing a mini-essay here. That sometimes happens. I hope it didn't stop being relevant to you! (Edit: you put in the last part of your comment while I was writing the above, so I'll respond with an edit too. No, it's not ok to replace that language with words like "nonsense" or "balderdash". Those still count as name-calling in the sense that https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html uses the term; and they don't solve the real problem. Since my reply below is an attempt to explain the real problem, I won't go further here.)

protomolecule 2y ago

"I think Dan's point is that there's never a need to introduce references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits. No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be." @dang So how comments like this fit the site's guidelines? Btw, that's another account "using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle".

racional 2y ago
There's nothing political or nationalistic at all in my comment. My posts refer mostly to historical events, and attempt to correct the various (sometime rather bizarre) cognitive distortions that some people like to hold and promote about them. Along with many much milder and more innocuous misunderstandings. Personally I eschew all forms of nationalism and nationalist rhetoric.

dang 2y ago

> No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be. With this you do exactly what we're asking commenters to avoid doing on HN. It's not as bad as if you were hurling the insult directly at someone, but it's not so different either—as the reply you got demonstrated. The issue isn't that we shouldn't reference each other's nationality—it's that we should be open, curious and respectful with each other, most of all when it comes to divisive topics. When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively or snarkily, that's when it becomes flamebait and a moderation issue. In addition to the above: having just taken a look at your commenting history, it's clear that you've been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. Just as I said to the other users, that's not allowed on HN and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which side you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.

racional 2y ago
When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively or snarkily, that's when it becomes flamebait and a moderation issue. Can you point to even a single instance where I have done this, please? Meaning -- in reference to the country or its people per se (as opposed to the actions or ideology of the people who happen to be running it; or perhaps entirely reasonable references to what a measured portion of the population might say or think, as can be easily verified by numerous news reports)? If not -- then why are you setting forth the implication that this is something I have done? And lasties -- a lot of postings here (or excerpts from them) are plainly BS. Whether the poster is simply naive, or has less charitable motivations -- there's simply no mistaking it. I totally get that labeling these cases as such continuously makes for bad reading; and of course one should never to so spuriously. But what is so wrong or uncivil (or even "snarky") about pointing out this simple fact, in egregious cases when there's just no ifs, buts or mitigating factors about it? Or is just the fecal labeling? Would you prefer we stick to more G-rated terminology like "nonsense" and "balderdash"? I suppose I could live with that.
- dang 2y ago
  "self-evidently full of excrement their droppings" seemed both scornful and snarky to me. > a lot of postings here (or excerpts from them) are plainly BS In principle I agree because that's what human beings do, but I don't agree with your word "plainly". That implies that there exists an objective perspective that nearly everyone can easily agree on, as long as they're in good faith. But there's no such perspective—not on divisive topics. The situation is far from that. > But is so wrong or uncivil about pointing out this simple fact What counts as BS vs. not-BS, or true vs. false, is no "simple fact"—it's the core of the hardest problem. If you treat it as a simple fact (for example, "I'll just point out the simple fact that what you said is BS"), you're likely to fall into flamebait without intending to. It's better to explain patiently and respectfully why you believe someone is wrong. That's what we want on HN: to correct false information with true information, and bad arguments with better arguments—always respectfully and assuming good faith. > Whether the poster is simply naive, or has less charitable motivations If there's one thing I've learned it's that internet commenters are much too quick to make assumptions about others' motivations. The trouble is that these assumptions don't feel like assumptions; they just feel like completely-obvious-observations. Of course the other side has their own completely-obvious-observations. This is how we end up with flamewars. The solution is to refrain from making claims about other people's motivations, which you can't know because you don't have direct access to them, and which you're likely to be wrong about because we have so little information about each other from the tiny blobs of text that we're exchanging. Also, humans really dislike having their motivations commented on by others—so even if you've assessed them correctly, it's one of the worst tacks you can take. As a bonus, not doing so will make your comments more likely to be substantive and less likely to break the site guidelines. By the way, I think I noticed a pattern in the following phrases in your comment: "entirely reasonable", "easily verified", "plainly", "simply", "simple fact", "there's just no ifs, buts, or mitigating factors"; as well as "self evident" from your comment above. To me these phrases suggest a belief that the material under discussion is somehow obvious or transparent, and that it's obvious what's true and what's false (at least on certain points—I get that you aren't saying this about everything). When you have that feeling and then you encounter someone who's arguing against that simple/obvious/plain truth, you're almost forced to conclude something about the other person: they must be naive, disingenuous, obtuse—something like that—or maybe they're just dumb or bad. Why else would they deny the obvious? What I'd love to persuade you of is that this is a bad position to be commenting from on the internet (where we know so little about each other and don't have pre-existing relationships). It's likely to make your comments seem dismissive and/or aggressive and/or personal, even as it will feel completely obvious to you that you're "simply" pointing out facts. That's again how we get flamewars. Instead, we all need to realize that the world is a much, much, much bigger place than we thought. There are lots of people out there who have opposite views and feelings to our own, and who therefore have a different idea of what is obvious and transparent. This is not because they're disingenuous, obtuse, or dumb. It's because they have a different background than we do, and a different working set of information. Evolutionarily we're hard-wired towards assuming that other people feel and look and think the same as we do. In the mythical primordial jungle, we didn't encounter many others; and if we did, we probably tried to kill them (and they us). Now suddenly on the internet we're exposed, not just to a few more others, but to all the others: millions of others with totally different backgrounds, information, feelings. When we encounter them, our immediate reflex is the primordial fear of kill-or-be-killed—that's how hard-wiring works. And what is flamewar but the internet version of kill-or-be-killed? What we need to do instead is learn: learn that our existing assumptions, beliefs, feelings are too small for this new situation; learn to pause our first responses rather than reflexively expressing them; learn to look for information that might not be obvious/simple/plain, and to be willing to receive such information from the other. To me this is what Hacker News is about: an experiment in learning from each other, which first means tolerating each other: staying connected long enough to get over the initial response of "what kind of idiot, asshole, or sociopath is this" and move into an openness to "what could be the reasons why this person has such a different sense of what's obvious than I do?" Tolerance is one of the vanilla virtues we all think we're practicing, but actually we've barely begun to realize what it is. Tolerance feels terrible. It means bearing the pressure that the other person is putting on you—just as a beam engineered to a certain tolerance is able to carry so much load without snapping. In human terms, tolerance means being willing to bear the "unpleasant manifestations of others" right up to your snapping point and then letting it stretch your snapping point. Not only is that not easy, it's one of the hardest things a person can do. I ended up writing a mini-essay here. That sometimes happens. I hope it didn't stop being relevant to you! (Edit: you put in the last part of your comment while I was writing the above, so I'll respond with an edit too. No, it's not ok to replace that language with words like "nonsense" or "balderdash". Those still count as name-calling in the sense that https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html uses the term; and they don't solve the real problem. Since my reply below is an attempt to explain the real problem, I won't go further here.)