3 ms·

So far, you're the most political one on this thread. You're the most set in your position, and the most argumentative in favor of it, and using the most loade

So far, you're the most political one on this thread. You're the most set in your position, and the most argumentative in favor of it, and using the most loaded language to do it. (Not to single you out too much - I've become more and more sensitive to people who are here in "transmit-only mode". They won't listen, they won't have an actual discussion, they will only argue for their viewpoint, they won't concede or accept any of the other side's points, and they won't shut up, ever. It's completely antithetical to what HN is supposed to be, and I'm seeing it more and more, and it's really getting under my skin. It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people. So, hagbard_c, you're getting an over-reaction because of a bunch of pent-up frustration at people who are not you. But you're trending in the same direction, and you're doing it while complaining about the way political discussions happen here.)

hagbard_c 2y ago
I don't consider what I've seen here an overreaction, especially not seen in the light of how anyone who dared to venture outside of the desired narrative was treated in the last decade or so. If anything the reaction is quite mild which I consider to be a good sign for the future discourse on this site. I am here for the same reason as you are and I voice my opinion on 'political' subjects just like you do, we just happen to be on different sides of the political divide in at least some areas. The mere fact that you do not agree with my stance does not mean I am in 'transmit-only mode' (whatever that means). To solve the problem of polarisation it is necessary to first recognise it exists which includes looking at your own position and recognising it as being not the centre of truth but a point somewhere on the plane of the allowed discourse. This goes not just for you but for everyone, myself included. It does not mean you need to relinquish your position as soon as someone voices disagreement or starts labelling you in some way - *-ist, *-phobe or some of the more creative ones popping up every now and then. This goes for everyone as well, what you consider to be existential truth is probably hogwash to some others out there and vice-versa. So, AnimalMuppet, we both peruse this site for our own purposes and may meet again, may this be in the spirit of constructive dialogue and not in one of bitter resentment versus those who dare to disagree. An open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters after all?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  It wasn't that you were on the "other side" from me. (My position on Harris vs. Trump was "you gotta be kidding, give me someone worth voting for on at least one side".) Rather, my complaint is the way you (and others) are talking - the argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language. That kills a curious conversation. It at least gives the impression that you are there to do battle, and are not going to listen. So people (who are people, even on HN) decide that giving battle in return is the appropriate response. You may not be trying to do that. But it seems to me that your language is tending that direction.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    > the argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language Can you give an example of the 'strident language' I used? While I don't tend to gild the lilly I'm not wont to start 'fights' (for lack of a better term) but neither do I avoid them. This is a discussion board after all, not an NPR program or New Yorker/Atlantic piece where we need to sound 'cultured' and 'measured'. I much prefer honesty in language over the verbal equivalent of the slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick [1] which tends to be used in 'cultured' discourse. A spade is a spade just like a rose is a rose and the former can come in handy when dealing with the latter so just call it by its name? I think the 'problem' - if there is one, really - is not related to 'argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language' but to the narrowed window of allowed discourse on this and other similar sites (lobste.rs etc) which in turn is most likely related to the fact that most the people frequenting these sites passed through academia and later workplaces populated by similar people who all learned to keep their noses pointed mostly in the same direction even if they privately preferred the view from another side. When you're used to consensus - no matter whether it be true or false consensus - it becomes harder to deal with opposing views. This is one of the reasons why the ideological monoculture which is found in academia and many workplaces is such a negative development (no matter which ideology rules the roost) since it weakens what I for a lack of a better term will call the cultural immune system of its inhabitants who will, just like the biological namesake, start to overreact to the slightest insult (in immunological terms). Just like an under-exercised biological immune system leads to allergies an under-exercised cultural immune system leads to overreactions to normal variations from the established normal. [1] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blas...
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
> It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people. FWIW I think it's already happened. The site has always been trending in that direction, but I think the Reddit and Twitter exoduses last year just hit the nail in the coffin. My guess is that a lot of the most argumentatively passionate folks from those sites are the ones that left. They saw HN as a last bastion for people who share their "values" and brought their argumentative culture onto this site. I find most posts here these days that aren't strictly technical (and even then, hot button technical topics too) have comment sections indistinguishable from those on any other big news/social media site like Reddit or The Verge. I'm glad there are old users on the site here who still want to keep HN curious, but I've mostly thrown the towel in. In all fairness there's nothing wrong with that. The only constant in life is change. Maybe our time has come and it's time to duck out of the Conversation into group chats like many before us.

hagbard_c 2y ago

I don't consider what I've seen here an overreaction, especially not seen in the light of how anyone who dared to venture outside of the desired narrative was treated in the last decade or so. If anything the reaction is quite mild which I consider to be a good sign for the future discourse on this site. I am here for the same reason as you are and I voice my opinion on 'political' subjects just like you do, we just happen to be on different sides of the political divide in at least some areas. The mere fact that you do not agree with my stance does not mean I am in 'transmit-only mode' (whatever that means). To solve the problem of polarisation it is necessary to first recognise it exists which includes looking at your own position and recognising it as being not the centre of truth but a point somewhere on the plane of the allowed discourse. This goes not just for you but for everyone, myself included. It does not mean you need to relinquish your position as soon as someone voices disagreement or starts labelling you in some way - *-ist, *-phobe or some of the more creative ones popping up every now and then. This goes for everyone as well, what you consider to be existential truth is probably hogwash to some others out there and vice-versa. So, AnimalMuppet, we both peruse this site for our own purposes and may meet again, may this be in the spirit of constructive dialogue and not in one of bitter resentment versus those who dare to disagree. An open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters after all?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
It wasn't that you were on the "other side" from me. (My position on Harris vs. Trump was "you gotta be kidding, give me someone worth voting for on at least one side".) Rather, my complaint is the way you (and others) are talking - the argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language. That kills a curious conversation. It at least gives the impression that you are there to do battle, and are not going to listen. So people (who are people, even on HN) decide that giving battle in return is the appropriate response. You may not be trying to do that. But it seems to me that your language is tending that direction.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > the argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language Can you give an example of the 'strident language' I used? While I don't tend to gild the lilly I'm not wont to start 'fights' (for lack of a better term) but neither do I avoid them. This is a discussion board after all, not an NPR program or New Yorker/Atlantic piece where we need to sound 'cultured' and 'measured'. I much prefer honesty in language over the verbal equivalent of the slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick [1] which tends to be used in 'cultured' discourse. A spade is a spade just like a rose is a rose and the former can come in handy when dealing with the latter so just call it by its name? I think the 'problem' - if there is one, really - is not related to 'argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language' but to the narrowed window of allowed discourse on this and other similar sites (lobste.rs etc) which in turn is most likely related to the fact that most the people frequenting these sites passed through academia and later workplaces populated by similar people who all learned to keep their noses pointed mostly in the same direction even if they privately preferred the view from another side. When you're used to consensus - no matter whether it be true or false consensus - it becomes harder to deal with opposing views. This is one of the reasons why the ideological monoculture which is found in academia and many workplaces is such a negative development (no matter which ideology rules the roost) since it weakens what I for a lack of a better term will call the cultural immune system of its inhabitants who will, just like the biological namesake, start to overreact to the slightest insult (in immunological terms). Just like an under-exercised biological immune system leads to allergies an under-exercised cultural immune system leads to overreactions to normal variations from the established normal. [1] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blas...

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

> It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people. FWIW I think it's already happened. The site has always been trending in that direction, but I think the Reddit and Twitter exoduses last year just hit the nail in the coffin. My guess is that a lot of the most argumentatively passionate folks from those sites are the ones that left. They saw HN as a last bastion for people who share their "values" and brought their argumentative culture onto this site. I find most posts here these days that aren't strictly technical (and even then, hot button technical topics too) have comment sections indistinguishable from those on any other big news/social media site like Reddit or The Verge. I'm glad there are old users on the site here who still want to keep HN curious, but I've mostly thrown the towel in. In all fairness there's nothing wrong with that. The only constant in life is change. Maybe our time has come and it's time to duck out of the Conversation into group chats like many before us.