5 ms·

I appreciate the detailed response, and will give it careful consideration. I was hoping you could also respond to the question at the very top ("Can you point

I appreciate the detailed response, and will give it careful consideration. I was hoping you could also respond to the question at the very top ("Can you point to even a single instance ...", up to the "If not, then why ..." part). I'm not trying to split hairs here -- I'm really genuinely mystified by the apparent insinuation that I was responding to. That is, I don't see why would you bother to inject the phrase "When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively" -- if you didn't think that was what you observed me doing. At the same time I'm pretty that not only do I not talk about entire countries that way -- my language takes pains to avoid precisely such implications. And just a slight addendum -- I have to say I'm a bit confused about what you mean by "political battle". Is it -- simply too many posts about politics (or history, which tends to get bloody and political)? Or just being too blunt about it? Is for example this post an instance of "political battle"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40731093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40731093 I can see how it might look that way (especially if one has only vaguely heard of the political party I'm referring to, and hasn't looked into them in any detail). But I do believe that if one has done any homework at all on these folks -- then what I'm saying is pretty straightforward, and well, basically "obvious". And in any case, while it certainly takes a position, it's not a pugnacious or uncivil statement I'm making there. The sibling post perhaps makes a better, less brusque explanation of the same basic point. But again, it's just stating major recent events that should be, well -- obvious to anyone who follows basic political events in that country.

tptacek 2y ago
Just in case this is helpful (I saw this thread because I'm operantly conditioned to read Dan's comments to catch these essays he writes) --- you and I chatted a bunch up until about a month ago, when I sort of deliberately gave up on talking about Palestine on HN. In the intervening time until now, it looks like essentially all of your comments have been political. I think there's, like, 2 things about that? First: the overwhelming majority of what the site talks about isn't politics, and you're basically not engaging with it. That's fine for some topics; like, if all you engaged with was woodworking or Russian literature, you'd be great. But the 2nd thing is that political threads tend inexorably to become toxic and alienating, in ways that mess up conversations about woodworking and Russian literature and LLMs and APL. People literally hold grudges from the political threads! I think if you're going to exclusively comment on political threads, the bar is higher to stay assiduously within the guidelines, which basically means avoiding any kind of pejorative writing, even if it's oblique, about the commenters who disagree with you; write as if to a beloved but intractably wrong and somewhat thin-skinned uncle on an email thread just before Thanksgiving. (Or just mix it up and back away from the political debates. I know that's hard; they're fun.) This is just a guess, for what it's worth.
- racional 2y ago
  I think if you're going to exclusively comment on political threads, the bar is higher to stay assiduously within the guidelines, which basically means avoiding any kind of pejorative writing, even if it's oblique, about the commenters who disagree with you; write as if to a beloved but intractably wrong and somewhat thin-skinned uncle on an email thread just before Thanksgiving. This is most excellent advice. Thanks for chiming in.
dang 2y ago
I did respond to that question, right at the start; but I must not have been clear enough, so I'll try again. You asked for an example of where you had talked about someone's country scornfully, snarkily, or aggressively. My answer is that you did it in the very comment I was replying to, when you wrote: > No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be. I know you didn't express it that way explicitly, but context is important, and given the context, it was bound to come across that way. At least, it was how it landed with me when I first read it, and therefore I was unsurprised to see that it generated https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40751052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40751052 as a response from the commenter most likely to hear it that way in this thread. (tptacek gave you such a good answer about the other stuff that I don't want to try to add to it)
- racional 2y ago
  Thanks for clarifying -- but the referent of the implicit "they" in that snippet (via "their droppings") was an (abstract) commenter -- not their country or nationality! Which is also something you'd also prefer we not do (that is: referring to individuals with implied scorn) -- and since you're asking nicely and it's your shop here, I will make assiduous efforts to catch myself before doing so, moving forward. So perhaps what I should have said was something like this: There's never a need to introduce (gratuitous) references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits... No matter how much we may object to the message or import of what they have written. Which I would hope is a general policy we can all get behind on.
  - dang 2y ago
    Yes that would be much better!

tptacek 2y ago

Just in case this is helpful (I saw this thread because I'm operantly conditioned to read Dan's comments to catch these essays he writes) --- you and I chatted a bunch up until about a month ago, when I sort of deliberately gave up on talking about Palestine on HN. In the intervening time until now, it looks like essentially all of your comments have been political. I think there's, like, 2 things about that? First: the overwhelming majority of what the site talks about isn't politics, and you're basically not engaging with it. That's fine for some topics; like, if all you engaged with was woodworking or Russian literature, you'd be great. But the 2nd thing is that political threads tend inexorably to become toxic and alienating, in ways that mess up conversations about woodworking and Russian literature and LLMs and APL. People literally hold grudges from the political threads! I think if you're going to exclusively comment on political threads, the bar is higher to stay assiduously within the guidelines, which basically means avoiding any kind of pejorative writing, even if it's oblique, about the commenters who disagree with you; write as if to a beloved but intractably wrong and somewhat thin-skinned uncle on an email thread just before Thanksgiving. (Or just mix it up and back away from the political debates. I know that's hard; they're fun.) This is just a guess, for what it's worth.

racional 2y ago
I think if you're going to exclusively comment on political threads, the bar is higher to stay assiduously within the guidelines, which basically means avoiding any kind of pejorative writing, even if it's oblique, about the commenters who disagree with you; write as if to a beloved but intractably wrong and somewhat thin-skinned uncle on an email thread just before Thanksgiving. This is most excellent advice. Thanks for chiming in.

dang 2y ago

I did respond to that question, right at the start; but I must not have been clear enough, so I'll try again. You asked for an example of where you had talked about someone's country scornfully, snarkily, or aggressively. My answer is that you did it in the very comment I was replying to, when you wrote: > No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be. I know you didn't express it that way explicitly, but context is important, and given the context, it was bound to come across that way. At least, it was how it landed with me when I first read it, and therefore I was unsurprised to see that it generated https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40751052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40751052 as a response from the commenter most likely to hear it that way in this thread. (tptacek gave you such a good answer about the other stuff that I don't want to try to add to it)

racional 2y ago
Thanks for clarifying -- but the referent of the implicit "they" in that snippet (via "their droppings") was an (abstract) commenter -- not their country or nationality! Which is also something you'd also prefer we not do (that is: referring to individuals with implied scorn) -- and since you're asking nicely and it's your shop here, I will make assiduous efforts to catch myself before doing so, moving forward. So perhaps what I should have said was something like this: There's never a need to introduce (gratuitous) references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits... No matter how much we may object to the message or import of what they have written. Which I would hope is a general policy we can all get behind on.
- dang 2y ago
  Yes that would be much better!