3 ms·

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 t

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...
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > Can you give an example of the 'strident language' I used? In the post I first replied to: "same tired tropes" and "tottering pile" specifically. There's something about both those phrases that just screams "I'm here to score points, not to have a discussion". They read like press releases from some propaganda office - they're reaching for emotional impact, but they're not how human beings actually talk. Or at least that's how they strike me. As I said, you're getting the spillover of my frustration from a number of people posting this way. It's not just you.
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
> 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. You're bringing external baggage into this discussion. The problem is, we all have different types of baggage. You may have "dared to venture outside of the desired narrative" but not everyone had, or maybe they had discussed these matters in private chats and forums and are only now talking about them online. I find that keeping personal beefs out of reactions helps keep comment quality high. Though you make me curious. Is the appeal of HN to you when discussing these matters that it censors less?

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...
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Can you give an example of the 'strident language' I used? In the post I first replied to: "same tired tropes" and "tottering pile" specifically. There's something about both those phrases that just screams "I'm here to score points, not to have a discussion". They read like press releases from some propaganda office - they're reaching for emotional impact, but they're not how human beings actually talk. Or at least that's how they strike me. As I said, you're getting the spillover of my frustration from a number of people posting this way. It's not just you.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

> 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. You're bringing external baggage into this discussion. The problem is, we all have different types of baggage. You may have "dared to venture outside of the desired narrative" but not everyone had, or maybe they had discussed these matters in private chats and forums and are only now talking about them online. I find that keeping personal beefs out of reactions helps keep comment quality high. Though you make me curious. Is the appeal of HN to you when discussing these matters that it censors less?