4 ms·

What you have just done is not an actual defense of your community and its behavior. It is an attack on the OP. the OPs conduct has no bearing on the justific

What you have just done is not an actual defense of your community and its behavior. It is an attack on the OP. the OPs conduct has no bearing on the justifications and motivation of your conduct. We should all endeavor to be more humane to others, and I'm sad to see a comment like this leaning towards a persecution complex more than an understanding of others.

crusso 14y ago
What you have just done is not an actual defense of your community and its behavior. Was that a requirement for posting to this thread? I thought TFA was ironic - criticizing others for wasting their electrons typing something non-productive while it was basically criticizing others and wasting electrons typing something non-productive. Seriously, nobody is curing cancer in TFA or this thread.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  Spreading misery and bad feeling does not require a substantive topic to be conveyed or middle school would be considerably more pleasant for everyone involved. You're right in the following fashion. I assumed that folks who participated in this thread might want to be self-aware enough to check themselves before they wreck themselves in a thread about nastiness. Some folks (i would probably dub them trolls) might just double down on the nastiness. I'd rather assume some good faith in discussing the topic. Even if you disagree with the OP, it is possible to point out the substantive facts over which you disagree, or to point out the flaws in the OP's premise without attacking the OP. If there's no problem, then there's no problem. But I don't think that's the case. HN's sharp edges occasionally protrude, and maybe it's just my nostalgic memory, but it feels to me like people have been getting nasty just for the sake of being nasty (or edgy, or funny, or whatever). People can be wrong, mistaken, misguided, misinformed, but unless they're being malicious I wish that people would more often give others the benefit of the doubt. There is a person on the other end of that keyboard (at least as far as we, or Turing knows).
  - crusso 14y ago
    What I objected to was your automatic assumption that there was something to defend and your condescending tone in obligating the GP to defend it. It's really hard to be critical of criticism without committing the very act you're claiming to be attacking.
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      Regardless of whether there's something to defend or not (as i said earlier), that doesn't excuse attacking others, especially in a conversation about civility. Aside from arguing over the contours of whether something is or isn't hypocrisy, all being mean does is drag you down too. I'm not telling GP that he is obligated to do anything. All I've said is that his response to OP makes him come off as poorly as OP does and will not further his goals. You can call that condescending if you want, but that doesn't really pertain to the discussion, if you assume that GP is participating in the conversation in good faith, and is addressing the OP's point.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

crusso 14y ago

What you have just done is not an actual defense of your community and its behavior. Was that a requirement for posting to this thread? I thought TFA was ironic - criticizing others for wasting their electrons typing something non-productive while it was basically criticizing others and wasting electrons typing something non-productive. Seriously, nobody is curing cancer in TFA or this thread.

knowtheory 14y ago
Spreading misery and bad feeling does not require a substantive topic to be conveyed or middle school would be considerably more pleasant for everyone involved. You're right in the following fashion. I assumed that folks who participated in this thread might want to be self-aware enough to check themselves before they wreck themselves in a thread about nastiness. Some folks (i would probably dub them trolls) might just double down on the nastiness. I'd rather assume some good faith in discussing the topic. Even if you disagree with the OP, it is possible to point out the substantive facts over which you disagree, or to point out the flaws in the OP's premise without attacking the OP. If there's no problem, then there's no problem. But I don't think that's the case. HN's sharp edges occasionally protrude, and maybe it's just my nostalgic memory, but it feels to me like people have been getting nasty just for the sake of being nasty (or edgy, or funny, or whatever). People can be wrong, mistaken, misguided, misinformed, but unless they're being malicious I wish that people would more often give others the benefit of the doubt. There is a person on the other end of that keyboard (at least as far as we, or Turing knows).
- crusso 14y ago
  What I objected to was your automatic assumption that there was something to defend and your condescending tone in obligating the GP to defend it. It's really hard to be critical of criticism without committing the very act you're claiming to be attacking.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Regardless of whether there's something to defend or not (as i said earlier), that doesn't excuse attacking others, especially in a conversation about civility. Aside from arguing over the contours of whether something is or isn't hypocrisy, all being mean does is drag you down too. I'm not telling GP that he is obligated to do anything. All I've said is that his response to OP makes him come off as poorly as OP does and will not further his goals. You can call that condescending if you want, but that doesn't really pertain to the discussion, if you assume that GP is participating in the conversation in good faith, and is addressing the OP's point.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]