3 ms·

> I'll give you one more, but I probably wont respond. It's not personal, it's just not valuable for either of us. Then why did you bother responding in the fi

by latexr 1y ago

> I'll give you one more, but I probably wont respond. It's not personal, it's just not valuable for either of us. Then why did you bother responding in the first place, and why should anyone bother reading beyond that point? If you’re not interested in discussing, don’t. Throwing a bunch of words at someone and then going closing your ears singing “la la la” is worse than not being valuable, it has negative value for the discussion. Frankly, that made me only skim the rest of your post instead of engaging properly. It was still pretty obvious you lack real empathy for the author, their needs, and are unable to understand people who have a different view of the issue than you do. Here‘s the thing: The author isn’t making a general commentary or recommendation, they are recounting their own personal experience. Pretending you know what makes sense for them is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand other people have different needs and ways of approaching life is a you problem.

bee_rider 1y ago
I guess sometimes people just need to get a thought out. At least that note saved us the time of reading the comment in full.
1dom 1y ago
> Then why did you bother responding in the first place, and why should anyone bother reading beyond that point? If you’re not interested in discussing, don’t. Throwing a bunch of words at someone and then going closing your ears singing “la la la” is worse than not being valuable, it has negative value for the discussion. I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going to read, it's just that disagreeing so vehemently on a sentence by sentence basis - like we're both clearly prone to do - isn't always fun or productive. Neither of us is going to change our mind with the depth and detail at which we're disagreeing. You're completely fair to see it as me sticking my fingers in my ears, sorry, because that's disrespectful of me. My intent was to give you the respect of responding in a similar level of detail to address your points, since you gave the time for me, but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it... > Here‘s the thing: The author isn’t making a general commentary or recommendation, they are recounting their own personal experience. Pretending you know what makes sense for them is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand other people have different needs and ways of approaching life is a you problem. I never claimed to know what's best for them, I would even go as far as saying I don't care what's best for them, I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge. Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing. Here's the thing: I'm not making a general commentary or recommendation, I'm recounting my own _personal_ view of what's best for human knowledge and what I think of the authors article. Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd", is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem...:P
- latexr 1y ago
  > I didn't mean to imply (…) but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it... Alright, fair! Thank you for clarifying. > I never claimed to know what's best for them (…) I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge Even rereading your original post, it still feels like some parts are a direct prescription for the author. But I believe you if you say that wasn’t your intention. I guess my argument would then be that I still support the author in their deletion, for several reasons, including but not limited to: * We don’t actually know what was “lost”. Let’s be real: most of what any of us writes is irrelevant and inconsequential and wouldn’t truly contribute to human knowledge as a whole. * I don’t think it’s fair for the author to suffer in any way, even if it’s “just” anxiety, for the dubious benefit of human knowledge. Even if they did have valuable insights in their texts, they are still their texts and they should have the final say regarding what happens to them. If they want to burn them and doing so will help them get their life back on track, they should. I would argue that without that purge, they could actually be doing more harm to human knowledge in the long run, by not letting them “get back on their feet” and be free for all the new and more valuable insights they’ll have but wouldn’t otherwise. > Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing. I agree burning books is bad on principle, but disagree that what the author did was comparable. They didn’t take away from human knowledge, like book burning does. They deleted personal notes no one else was ever probably going to read anyway. The difference is massive. > Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd" To be perfectly clear, the only thing I found absurd what that specific quote in relation to what the author did. I.e. I found it to be hyperbolic beyond the realm of reasonable argument. Everything else I found reasonable as a personal opinion as long as it’s not prescribed as the solution for everyone. > That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem Again, that is perfectly fine and valid. But in your original posts you explicitly asked for everyone to act a certain way and my primary goal as to point out that no, I don’t think that should apply to everyone. Many people, sure, but there is definitely a large section of the population for whom I don’t think it would be the right approach. For their own sake, which in this situation trumps “human knowledge”.
  - 1y ago
1dom 1y ago
I really don't like the HN have deleted a bunch of both of our posts here, I have them saved. I stand by my point, this has been a wasted discussion that I shouldn't have engaged with. In some of the deleted posts, I apologised for time wasted. But also, I think you should acknowledge too that neither of us got anything out of the walls of now deleted text. This is exactly why I tried to shut the conversation down from the start - it was clear to me from the familiarity of your style that it would end this way, and so I was trying to do us both a favour. I understand why you took issue, because of how I did it, but the fact that so much has been deleted here shows that I was correct in my initial response to you: we couldn't and didn't interact productively. I was able to interact fine with the other responses, that's not to say this is your fault at all, but more the combination of our 2 personality types. Anyway, I guess we're both done here. Apologies again for my role, but you should also perhaps be more open to ending a conversation cordially when someone says they're trying to make the effort to end it, rather than assuming fingers-in-ears bad intent.

by latexr 1y ago

bee_rider 1y ago

I guess sometimes people just need to get a thought out. At least that note saved us the time of reading the comment in full.

1dom 1y ago

> Then why did you bother responding in the first place, and why should anyone bother reading beyond that point? If you’re not interested in discussing, don’t. Throwing a bunch of words at someone and then going closing your ears singing “la la la” is worse than not being valuable, it has negative value for the discussion. I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going to read, it's just that disagreeing so vehemently on a sentence by sentence basis - like we're both clearly prone to do - isn't always fun or productive. Neither of us is going to change our mind with the depth and detail at which we're disagreeing. You're completely fair to see it as me sticking my fingers in my ears, sorry, because that's disrespectful of me. My intent was to give you the respect of responding in a similar level of detail to address your points, since you gave the time for me, but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it... > Here‘s the thing: The author isn’t making a general commentary or recommendation, they are recounting their own personal experience. Pretending you know what makes sense for them is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand other people have different needs and ways of approaching life is a you problem. I never claimed to know what's best for them, I would even go as far as saying I don't care what's best for them, I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge. Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing. Here's the thing: I'm not making a general commentary or recommendation, I'm recounting my own _personal_ view of what's best for human knowledge and what I think of the authors article. Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd", is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem...:P

latexr 1y ago
> I didn't mean to imply (…) but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it... Alright, fair! Thank you for clarifying. > I never claimed to know what's best for them (…) I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge Even rereading your original post, it still feels like some parts are a direct prescription for the author. But I believe you if you say that wasn’t your intention. I guess my argument would then be that I still support the author in their deletion, for several reasons, including but not limited to: * We don’t actually know what was “lost”. Let’s be real: most of what any of us writes is irrelevant and inconsequential and wouldn’t truly contribute to human knowledge as a whole. * I don’t think it’s fair for the author to suffer in any way, even if it’s “just” anxiety, for the dubious benefit of human knowledge. Even if they did have valuable insights in their texts, they are still their texts and they should have the final say regarding what happens to them. If they want to burn them and doing so will help them get their life back on track, they should. I would argue that without that purge, they could actually be doing more harm to human knowledge in the long run, by not letting them “get back on their feet” and be free for all the new and more valuable insights they’ll have but wouldn’t otherwise. > Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing. I agree burning books is bad on principle, but disagree that what the author did was comparable. They didn’t take away from human knowledge, like book burning does. They deleted personal notes no one else was ever probably going to read anyway. The difference is massive. > Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd" To be perfectly clear, the only thing I found absurd what that specific quote in relation to what the author did. I.e. I found it to be hyperbolic beyond the realm of reasonable argument. Everything else I found reasonable as a personal opinion as long as it’s not prescribed as the solution for everyone. > That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem Again, that is perfectly fine and valid. But in your original posts you explicitly asked for everyone to act a certain way and my primary goal as to point out that no, I don’t think that should apply to everyone. Many people, sure, but there is definitely a large section of the population for whom I don’t think it would be the right approach. For their own sake, which in this situation trumps “human knowledge”.
- 1y ago

1dom 1y ago

I really don't like the HN have deleted a bunch of both of our posts here, I have them saved. I stand by my point, this has been a wasted discussion that I shouldn't have engaged with. In some of the deleted posts, I apologised for time wasted. But also, I think you should acknowledge too that neither of us got anything out of the walls of now deleted text. This is exactly why I tried to shut the conversation down from the start - it was clear to me from the familiarity of your style that it would end this way, and so I was trying to do us both a favour. I understand why you took issue, because of how I did it, but the fact that so much has been deleted here shows that I was correct in my initial response to you: we couldn't and didn't interact productively. I was able to interact fine with the other responses, that's not to say this is your fault at all, but more the combination of our 2 personality types. Anyway, I guess we're both done here. Apologies again for my role, but you should also perhaps be more open to ending a conversation cordially when someone says they're trying to make the effort to end it, rather than assuming fingers-in-ears bad intent.