3 ms·

> edit: For what it's worth, if you can't see that this language is rude or think it is somehow acceptable for people of a certain caliber to talk this way - yo

> edit: For what it's worth, if you can't see that this language is rude or think it is somehow acceptable for people of a certain caliber to talk this way - you're also probably toxic. Personally, I prefer direct language if it gets to the root of the problem quicker. It's more pragmatic. You just have to pick your audience, because some people get offended by it. But the most productive discussions I've had have been arguments where you can both quickly find the holes in each other's positions, and then move forwards from there. As long as no one is taking it personally, this is very effective. OTOH, I've been in many meetings where people talk around a problem for an hour, never reaching the conflict about what their disagreement actually is. To me, that is much more frustrating than someone risking offending someone by being direct. But it really depends upon the people you work with and the team you have.

yallpendantools 1y ago
There's a line between rude/toxic and direct/pragmatic. The whole world at large would be much better off if we made that distinction. Also, that both tones can be found in the same piece of prose; we don't have to label a whole piece as one or the other. > If you want a dataflow graph compiler, build a dataflow graph compiler. > This is not 6 layers of abstraction, it's 3 (and only 2 you have to build). This is direct and pragmatic. It states the writer's justified true beliefs and opinions as plainly as possible. > Plz bro one more stack this stack will be good i promise > bro bro bro plz one more make it all back one trade type beat This is just toxic. The writer is making assumptions about other people's position that he does not (and probably could not) substantiate. Ironically, sprinkling in toxic comments and back-handed insults in any piece has the effect of making said piece less direct and pragmatic.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sothatsit 1y ago
  True, but I just fear that people tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, opting for safe rather than effective communication. Only like 4 lines of what geohot said are problematic. Would it be better if they weren't there? Yes. But, it's also not as egregious as you and that throwaway account make it out to be. It's more just annoying.

yallpendantools 1y ago

There's a line between rude/toxic and direct/pragmatic. The whole world at large would be much better off if we made that distinction. Also, that both tones can be found in the same piece of prose; we don't have to label a whole piece as one or the other. > If you want a dataflow graph compiler, build a dataflow graph compiler. > This is not 6 layers of abstraction, it's 3 (and only 2 you have to build). This is direct and pragmatic. It states the writer's justified true beliefs and opinions as plainly as possible. > Plz bro one more stack this stack will be good i promise > bro bro bro plz one more make it all back one trade type beat This is just toxic. The writer is making assumptions about other people's position that he does not (and probably could not) substantiate. Ironically, sprinkling in toxic comments and back-handed insults in any piece has the effect of making said piece less direct and pragmatic.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sothatsit 1y ago
True, but I just fear that people tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, opting for safe rather than effective communication. Only like 4 lines of what geohot said are problematic. Would it be better if they weren't there? Yes. But, it's also not as egregious as you and that throwaway account make it out to be. It's more just annoying.