3 ms·

First step would be taking down the website, second step is an apology, third step is bringing back online with new branding and eventually a final word to than

First step would be taking down the website, second step is an apology, third step is bringing back online with new branding and eventually a final word to thank them, share the link and say they remain open to criticism. It's not rocket science. Pretty sure even his LLM would give that strategy and implement it without burning too many tokens. More than inexperienced, either he really can't read a room or he knows very well what he is doing.

lopis 5mo ago
Right? Instead we get: - Saying he's hoping Don allows it - "I actually did nothing wrong" - "I actually did nothing wrong" part 2 - "I actually did nothing wrong" part 3 - Why are you so mad? Give me a week - Why are you so mad? I added more lies to the website - Why are you so mad? I'm working on it ... over the course of 2 days. Shutting down the website and pulling the app offline should have taken minutes.
- 47282847 5mo ago
  People react differently to feedback without necessarily bad intentions. Not everyone is ready to instantly admit mistakes. Empathy goes a long way.
  - HumblyTossed 5mo ago
    Reading the above, how much empathy does someone need to give before they can feel the other party has bad intentions? "No" needs to mean something.
    - 47282847 5mo ago
      It’s not either-or. You can tell people No and be empathetic to their reasons at the same time. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement or acceptance. It also doesn’t mean you excuse their behavior, or allow it to continue. Empathy doesn’t mean you like what they’re doing. That would be sympathy. In fact, understanding makes it easier to get people to do what you want. Some argue that it is even a precondition, to meet someone where they are, to get them to change their ways. The other remaining option is violence/force, which will not fundamentally change their behavior but only shift the problematic behavior elsewhere (and often make it worse).
      - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        > It’s not either-or. You can tell people No and be empathetic to their reasons at the same time. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement or acceptance. It also doesn’t mean you excuse their behavior, or allow it to continue. Empathy doesn’t mean you like what they’re doing. That would be sympathy. We're talking about a discussion in which the author continues their violations after being told "no", and excuses it with their "reasons". Their reasons can come after they stop the actual wrongdoing, and maybe after they understand what they did wrong and apologize for it.
        dmos62 5mo ago
        We all agree that that would be tactful. But, human empathy is neither an act of excusing the subject of the empathy, nor limited to tactful subjects.
        ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        Asking someone to empathize with their persecutor while they are actively harming that someone is generally viewed as abusive gaslighting in most other contexts. Would you ask physical abuse victims to be empathetic towards their abusers in the middle of a beating, too? What if they were told it hurt, and asked to stop, and they instead continued anyways while repeatedly and politely saying they had good intentions in beating the victim?
        47282847 5mo ago
        Gaslighting in its original sense is a continued process of abuse that leads to a person doubting their own perception, typically with a long term PTSD as consequence. What we are discussing here are possible strategies to get somebody to change their behavior. If you consider people stating a different opinion than you to be gaslighting you, you might want to dig deeper. I think what is happening here is a difference in understanding of what we mean by empathy, and what it entails in terms of visible action or response. I tried to make it clear that to me, you can both be understanding of the feelings and the (ir)rationality of an abuser and be clear in your boundary-setting (and possible application of protective force) at the same time. The understanding of your “opponent” can help guide your interaction, whether it is verbal communication or other. It doesn’t mean “to be nice” in your response, or accepting their actions. The reason why I advocate for “more empathy” is because I firmly believe it can make you more successful in clear boundary setting and in communicating and achieving your goals, not weaker, especially in situations where you strongly disagree with somebody else’s actions. To come back to the case at hand: We seem to agree that the goal is to get him to stop and take the project down. The strategies employed so far to tell him No didn’t make him stop. Now what? I suggested to try a little empathy in the response, something along the lines of “Thank you for offering your help in making NP++ even more successful! We appreciate your effort. For now, can you please take it down, and then we can discuss how you can bring your strengths and abilities to the project in a way that causes less controversy in our happy little community? Looking forward to hearing about your ideas!”. (Only works if sufficiently true; adjust where necessary.) The goal remains the same. Only the strategy is different. It doesn’t matter if I “like” the person or not, or if I “care” about them. I am interested in achieving my goals, and it requires their cooperation for that —- unless I want to sue. Which I don’t. With your hypothetical domestic violence abuser, you can shout No all you want at some people and they just won’t stop. If your goal is to get them to stop, you CAN try different strategies. Empathy expands your range of possible actions; it doesn’t limit them.
  - the_snooze 5mo ago
    altek has been given a number of off-ramps and alternatives to proceed. His continued resistance to take those isn't a sign of naivete, it's a sign of bad faith.

lopis 5mo ago

Right? Instead we get: - Saying he's hoping Don allows it - "I actually did nothing wrong" - "I actually did nothing wrong" part 2 - "I actually did nothing wrong" part 3 - Why are you so mad? Give me a week - Why are you so mad? I added more lies to the website - Why are you so mad? I'm working on it ... over the course of 2 days. Shutting down the website and pulling the app offline should have taken minutes.

47282847 5mo ago
People react differently to feedback without necessarily bad intentions. Not everyone is ready to instantly admit mistakes. Empathy goes a long way.
- HumblyTossed 5mo ago
  Reading the above, how much empathy does someone need to give before they can feel the other party has bad intentions? "No" needs to mean something.
  - 47282847 5mo ago
    It’s not either-or. You can tell people No and be empathetic to their reasons at the same time. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement or acceptance. It also doesn’t mean you excuse their behavior, or allow it to continue. Empathy doesn’t mean you like what they’re doing. That would be sympathy. In fact, understanding makes it easier to get people to do what you want. Some argue that it is even a precondition, to meet someone where they are, to get them to change their ways. The other remaining option is violence/force, which will not fundamentally change their behavior but only shift the problematic behavior elsewhere (and often make it worse).
    - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
      > It’s not either-or. You can tell people No and be empathetic to their reasons at the same time. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement or acceptance. It also doesn’t mean you excuse their behavior, or allow it to continue. Empathy doesn’t mean you like what they’re doing. That would be sympathy. We're talking about a discussion in which the author continues their violations after being told "no", and excuses it with their "reasons". Their reasons can come after they stop the actual wrongdoing, and maybe after they understand what they did wrong and apologize for it.
      - dmos62 5mo ago
        We all agree that that would be tactful. But, human empathy is neither an act of excusing the subject of the empathy, nor limited to tactful subjects.
        ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        Asking someone to empathize with their persecutor while they are actively harming that someone is generally viewed as abusive gaslighting in most other contexts. Would you ask physical abuse victims to be empathetic towards their abusers in the middle of a beating, too? What if they were told it hurt, and asked to stop, and they instead continued anyways while repeatedly and politely saying they had good intentions in beating the victim?
        47282847 5mo ago
        Gaslighting in its original sense is a continued process of abuse that leads to a person doubting their own perception, typically with a long term PTSD as consequence. What we are discussing here are possible strategies to get somebody to change their behavior. If you consider people stating a different opinion than you to be gaslighting you, you might want to dig deeper. I think what is happening here is a difference in understanding of what we mean by empathy, and what it entails in terms of visible action or response. I tried to make it clear that to me, you can both be understanding of the feelings and the (ir)rationality of an abuser and be clear in your boundary-setting (and possible application of protective force) at the same time. The understanding of your “opponent” can help guide your interaction, whether it is verbal communication or other. It doesn’t mean “to be nice” in your response, or accepting their actions. The reason why I advocate for “more empathy” is because I firmly believe it can make you more successful in clear boundary setting and in communicating and achieving your goals, not weaker, especially in situations where you strongly disagree with somebody else’s actions. To come back to the case at hand: We seem to agree that the goal is to get him to stop and take the project down. The strategies employed so far to tell him No didn’t make him stop. Now what? I suggested to try a little empathy in the response, something along the lines of “Thank you for offering your help in making NP++ even more successful! We appreciate your effort. For now, can you please take it down, and then we can discuss how you can bring your strengths and abilities to the project in a way that causes less controversy in our happy little community? Looking forward to hearing about your ideas!”. (Only works if sufficiently true; adjust where necessary.) The goal remains the same. Only the strategy is different. It doesn’t matter if I “like” the person or not, or if I “care” about them. I am interested in achieving my goals, and it requires their cooperation for that —- unless I want to sue. Which I don’t. With your hypothetical domestic violence abuser, you can shout No all you want at some people and they just won’t stop. If your goal is to get them to stop, you CAN try different strategies. Empathy expands your range of possible actions; it doesn’t limit them.
- the_snooze 5mo ago
  altek has been given a number of off-ramps and alternatives to proceed. His continued resistance to take those isn't a sign of naivete, it's a sign of bad faith.