12 ms·

I know it's a hard ask on this site, but I need you to start parsing content and not tone. It was a helpful bit of context, even if it was a bit vitriolic.

• Almondsetat 3mo ago
  Why should I waste time parsing content and not tone? Why can't the commenter just avoid the tone? It even saves time since you can write less!
  • m_ke 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • oxzidized 3mo ago
      > because it gets people like you going So you're admiting you were trolling?
      • m_ke 3mo ago
        no, the goal was to spark a conversation about the value of *open AI* and it looks like it worked
  • viccis 3mo ago
    Because discourse around tone isn't productive. You could wipe this whole comment thread, starting with the parent of mine, and lose exactly zero information.
• SubiculumCode 3mo ago
  The content was 'you need to get your head checked'. That isn't tone, that directly implying that if you hold that position, there is something wrong with you. It's rude and unnecessary.
• jvanderbot 3mo ago
  It depends on if we expect posters to be informative and include nuance.
• BeetleB 3mo ago
  Some battles are simply not going to be won. I, for example, dislike reading comments complaining the submission (or another comment) is LLM generated. Focus on the content, not the style. I'm not going to have my way, and nor shall you.
  • viccis 3mo ago
    Oh, I understand. It's the nature of the voting system of comment feedback. Reddit behaves the same way. Arguments become competitions to see who can inject enough vitriol while still maintaining a placid genteel demeanor. The one who "wins" (convinces the peanut gallery to upvote them) is the one who can avoid looking like they got mad. It's why people can advocate for ethnic cleansing here, and that's fine as long as they word it correctly, but if someone calls them an asshole about it, they're flagged. Really common in rationalist circles from my experience as well because they believe that true statements aren't always normative, and that, since their arguments are true because they're rational, their statements aren't necessarily normative. Begging the question, of course, but I see that in situations like Scott Alexander's defense of "human biodiversity" theories (the whole HBD moniker is itself an example of everything I'm talking about condensed into two words).
    • BeetleB 3mo ago
      > Oh, I understand. It's the nature of the voting system of comment feedback. Reddit behaves the same way. Arguments become competitions to see who can inject enough vitriol while still maintaining a placid genteel demeanor. The one who "wins" (convinces the peanut gallery to upvote them) is the one who can avoid looking like they got mad. Depends on which subreddit and which flavor of groupthink. The behavior you say is upvoted is one I often see downvoted to oblivion on Reddit. > but if someone calls them an asshole about it, they're flagged. That's because name calling is against HN guidelines. Just an aside since it's not clear: I think the asshole is the one using labels like "decel" (or even "MAGA" unless the person self describes). It's irrelevant if I agree with the rest of the comment. It's OK to call people out for name calling while still agreeing with the rest. It's problematic to require one acknowledge the quality of the rest of the comment when calling them out on their name calling. Put in a less twisted manner: If it's OK to address his comment sans the "decel", it should also be OK to address his use of "decel" without discussing the rest of the comment.
• khazhoux 2mo ago
  Speaking of tone, the phrase "I need you to X" is super condescending. You're not his superior, and he's not your child nor your subordinate. He is not beholden in any way to what you "need." Much better would be to just use good ol' "please": > I know it's a hard ask on this site, but please start parsing content and not tone