4 ms·

> That one seems really straightforward - people don't owe you receipts for their views or explanations for their motivations. Everything "seems straightforwar

> That one seems really straightforward - people don't owe you receipts for their views or explanations for their motivations. Everything "seems straightforward" when you just make up what seems convenient without actually inspecting what is there, or the "aspirations" of the comments I'm referring to. People do owe themselves there being receipts before they speak, absolutely. This is not a diary, this is making claims in public. Of course they have to stand up to scrutiny, or get retracted. What else? What do you consider intellectually honest where that isn't the minimum? If I ask what is the thought process here, and there is only evasion, because there is no thought process, or I ask what some wishy washy phrases means in practice, in the actual context it was used as an argument in, and I get nothing, then that's because there was just this wishy washy phrase. The respective people can prove that wrong. You can't do it for them. Why even try? Why even go there? If I say "what you just wrote is racist so the opposite is true" and you ask "how so?" and then I don't reply because it was obviously bullshit, then that's not some high-fallutin' principled stand for good faith conversation, it's really just people trying something, failing, not acknowledging that, to keep doing it. It's the opposite of good faith discussion.

tptacek 2y ago
People do owe themselves there being receipts before they speak, absolutely. No, they don't. Especially not here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=water%20cooler%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- computerthings 2y ago
  Sure, it's a watercooler, with Blockwarts that seek to prevent any discussion of the giant yellow bulldozer outside the window, but when you ask them if they don't have to work sometimes, they never make the case why other people can only talk about what they like. They just stare, and then interrupt again. > Please don't post shallow dismissals The person I replied to picked the part from a link I did NOT quote, ignored what I did I quote, everything else I wrote, and said "this one is easy". And then even that "one easy thing" was just a straw man. They used the phrase "owing receipts" to refer to something I said, misrepresenting or rather simply not caring about the contexts that did refer to, instead making up a straw man, what they preferred imagining it to be. I obviously ignored the straw man, and re-used their word "receipts" instead of repeating my original phrasing, but it's the same thing. It means what it actually means, not what the straw man made it out to be. Don't say random shit. That's implied in not posting shallow dismissals, random shit is a subset of shallow dismissal. And if you can't rephrase what you said, or how it's applicable or relevant, because you haven't thought about it at all, because it's literally just a knee-jerk "no u" or some slogan, then no, of course you shouldn't say it. I mean, I don't care, I can easily refute it. But for me it just takes up space to refute something that would have been prevented by being parsed by the author first, instead of me parsing it first.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Nope.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      Good thing I wasn't asking ^^

tptacek 2y ago

People do owe themselves there being receipts before they speak, absolutely. No, they don't. Especially not here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=water%20cooler%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

computerthings 2y ago
Sure, it's a watercooler, with Blockwarts that seek to prevent any discussion of the giant yellow bulldozer outside the window, but when you ask them if they don't have to work sometimes, they never make the case why other people can only talk about what they like. They just stare, and then interrupt again. > Please don't post shallow dismissals The person I replied to picked the part from a link I did NOT quote, ignored what I did I quote, everything else I wrote, and said "this one is easy". And then even that "one easy thing" was just a straw man. They used the phrase "owing receipts" to refer to something I said, misrepresenting or rather simply not caring about the contexts that did refer to, instead making up a straw man, what they preferred imagining it to be. I obviously ignored the straw man, and re-used their word "receipts" instead of repeating my original phrasing, but it's the same thing. It means what it actually means, not what the straw man made it out to be. Don't say random shit. That's implied in not posting shallow dismissals, random shit is a subset of shallow dismissal. And if you can't rephrase what you said, or how it's applicable or relevant, because you haven't thought about it at all, because it's literally just a knee-jerk "no u" or some slogan, then no, of course you shouldn't say it. I mean, I don't care, I can easily refute it. But for me it just takes up space to refute something that would have been prevented by being parsed by the author first, instead of me parsing it first.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Nope.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    Good thing I wasn't asking ^^