4 ms·

> Only if I were disagreeing with some substantive point he made, which I'm not (I'm not agreeing, either). The substantive issue of my comment was his tone. I'

> Only if I were disagreeing with some substantive point he made, which I'm not (I'm not agreeing, either). The substantive issue of my comment was his tone. I'm not disagreeing with him or trying to convince others that he's wrong FTA: So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where. > I'm just calling him out for being a jackass. This is actually DH0, Name Calling.

Floegipoky 13y ago
You can't (reasonably) apply the hierarchy of disagreement to someone who is not actually disagreeing. He's not saying this to contribute to the debate, he's trying to encourage the community to express itself in an appropriate manner. Zed has made it pretty clear that he has no interest in factual debate. Multiple people have tried to point out the misunderstandings expressed in his posts and have been met with accusations of hypocrisy and/or avoidance of the actual points raised. He's firmly in the range of DH0-3. I'll admit I'm pretty new here, but this seems to me like behavior that the community should try to discourage.
redthrowaway 13y ago
"You're being a jackass" != "You're a jackass" I'm criticizing the behaviour, not the person. If you can't call out poor behaviour, you can't expect civil communication.
- milkshakes 13y ago
  > I'm criticizing the behaviour, not the person. What you're doing is kidding yourself. You already know that zed shaw, being zed shaw, could care less about what the fun police has to say about the way he expresses himself. > If you can't call out poor behaviour, you can't expect civil communication. This news forum provides a mechanism that allows users to collectively rank posts by voting on them. Zed's comment on this article happens to be the top ranked one. Respectfully, I would submit that the majority of people who have seen it value the information content of his post more than they are offended by the way that he delivered it. Could he have expressed himself in a more PG13 fashion? Sure he could have. Could he have made his point more politely? I don't think anyone would argue against that. But that's not Zed. Frankly, I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to appoint yourself the civility police and harass people for the way they say things without actually engaging with what they are trying to say. Luckily for us, Zed doesn't actually care what you think. But I don't believe that it is either constructive or in the spirit of this venue to encourage an environment that attacks people for how they say things, rather than what they say. I think that the losses from such an overly sensitive environment, given the diverse range of cultures and personalities this board attracts, would far outweigh the gains.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Nothing is lost by tailoring the tone of your comments to your audience; you're doing so right now through your choice of words. On Youtube, you might have said, "stop being such a fucking pussy", and it would have fit within the expected norms of conversation there. >I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to appoint yourself the civility police I've done no such thing. By claiming I'm not allowed to criticize someone's behaviour, you're doing the exact same thing you're condemning me for. >and harass people for the way they say things Telling someone to stop being an asshole when they're being an asshole isn't harassment by any reasonable definition of the word. >without actually engaging with what they are trying to say. I don't care what he's trying to say, and I'm explicitly not engaging in that facet of the discussion. If somebody was standing on the street corner grabbing passerby and shaking them while shouting, "don't take on more debt than you can pay!", I'd tell them to stop being an asshole, too. > I don't believe that it is either constructive or in the spirit of this venue to encourage an environment that attacks people for how they say things, rather than what they say. You're quite simply wrong. Look at any of the low-value, one-line comments that get downvoted to oblivion for saying something along the lines of, "this sucks". You can say, "this sucks" in a way that adds value, and you can say it in a way that detracts value. Saying, "this sucks because of xyz" is simply more valuable than saying "this sucks because of xyz and you're all a bunch of morons for disagreeing".
    - milkshakes 13y ago
      > By claiming I'm not allowed to criticize someone's behaviour, you're doing the exact same thing you're condemning me for. What I am criticizing you for is failing to understand that, at least in this specific case, your sensitivities do not in fact align with those of the community. And also for name calling someone who has contributed more to the hacker community in this past year than you have in your life. Zed Shaw's comment is at the top of this thread. That is data, that you cannot continue to ignore while still claiming to speak for the community. Hacker News has a very effective system for burying comments that the community deems offensive and inappropriate. If the community was truly offended, then this post would be buried, or dead, not at the top. > Telling someone to stop being an asshole when they're being an asshole isn't harassment by any reasonable definition of the word. You mentioned upthread that this is not the first time you have had this discussion with Zed. And you continue to emphasize that you are not interested in what he says, but just criticizing him for how he says it. How many times do you have to repeat the same conversation for it to constitute harassment? How many self-righteously morally outraged people like you do you following him around and littering his threads with meaningless ad hominem criticism think it will take before he decides it's not worth it and just leaves? Do you really think Hacker News would be a better place without Zed Shaw? > If somebody was standing on the street corner grabbing passerby and shaking them while shouting, "don't take on more debt than you can pay!", I'd tell them to stop being an asshole, too. What I'm trying to explain to you is that, in this case, you're the person on the street corner, Zed is the passerby, and I still think it would be rude to call you an asshole, though I will continue to point out that if your attempts are genuinely in an effort to better our community, it would be worth carefully considering whether they are in fact in the community's best interest.

Floegipoky 13y ago

You can't (reasonably) apply the hierarchy of disagreement to someone who is not actually disagreeing. He's not saying this to contribute to the debate, he's trying to encourage the community to express itself in an appropriate manner. Zed has made it pretty clear that he has no interest in factual debate. Multiple people have tried to point out the misunderstandings expressed in his posts and have been met with accusations of hypocrisy and/or avoidance of the actual points raised. He's firmly in the range of DH0-3. I'll admit I'm pretty new here, but this seems to me like behavior that the community should try to discourage.

redthrowaway 13y ago

"You're being a jackass" != "You're a jackass" I'm criticizing the behaviour, not the person. If you can't call out poor behaviour, you can't expect civil communication.

milkshakes 13y ago
> I'm criticizing the behaviour, not the person. What you're doing is kidding yourself. You already know that zed shaw, being zed shaw, could care less about what the fun police has to say about the way he expresses himself. > If you can't call out poor behaviour, you can't expect civil communication. This news forum provides a mechanism that allows users to collectively rank posts by voting on them. Zed's comment on this article happens to be the top ranked one. Respectfully, I would submit that the majority of people who have seen it value the information content of his post more than they are offended by the way that he delivered it. Could he have expressed himself in a more PG13 fashion? Sure he could have. Could he have made his point more politely? I don't think anyone would argue against that. But that's not Zed. Frankly, I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to appoint yourself the civility police and harass people for the way they say things without actually engaging with what they are trying to say. Luckily for us, Zed doesn't actually care what you think. But I don't believe that it is either constructive or in the spirit of this venue to encourage an environment that attacks people for how they say things, rather than what they say. I think that the losses from such an overly sensitive environment, given the diverse range of cultures and personalities this board attracts, would far outweigh the gains.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Nothing is lost by tailoring the tone of your comments to your audience; you're doing so right now through your choice of words. On Youtube, you might have said, "stop being such a fucking pussy", and it would have fit within the expected norms of conversation there. >I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to appoint yourself the civility police I've done no such thing. By claiming I'm not allowed to criticize someone's behaviour, you're doing the exact same thing you're condemning me for. >and harass people for the way they say things Telling someone to stop being an asshole when they're being an asshole isn't harassment by any reasonable definition of the word. >without actually engaging with what they are trying to say. I don't care what he's trying to say, and I'm explicitly not engaging in that facet of the discussion. If somebody was standing on the street corner grabbing passerby and shaking them while shouting, "don't take on more debt than you can pay!", I'd tell them to stop being an asshole, too. > I don't believe that it is either constructive or in the spirit of this venue to encourage an environment that attacks people for how they say things, rather than what they say. You're quite simply wrong. Look at any of the low-value, one-line comments that get downvoted to oblivion for saying something along the lines of, "this sucks". You can say, "this sucks" in a way that adds value, and you can say it in a way that detracts value. Saying, "this sucks because of xyz" is simply more valuable than saying "this sucks because of xyz and you're all a bunch of morons for disagreeing".
  - milkshakes 13y ago
    > By claiming I'm not allowed to criticize someone's behaviour, you're doing the exact same thing you're condemning me for. What I am criticizing you for is failing to understand that, at least in this specific case, your sensitivities do not in fact align with those of the community. And also for name calling someone who has contributed more to the hacker community in this past year than you have in your life. Zed Shaw's comment is at the top of this thread. That is data, that you cannot continue to ignore while still claiming to speak for the community. Hacker News has a very effective system for burying comments that the community deems offensive and inappropriate. If the community was truly offended, then this post would be buried, or dead, not at the top. > Telling someone to stop being an asshole when they're being an asshole isn't harassment by any reasonable definition of the word. You mentioned upthread that this is not the first time you have had this discussion with Zed. And you continue to emphasize that you are not interested in what he says, but just criticizing him for how he says it. How many times do you have to repeat the same conversation for it to constitute harassment? How many self-righteously morally outraged people like you do you following him around and littering his threads with meaningless ad hominem criticism think it will take before he decides it's not worth it and just leaves? Do you really think Hacker News would be a better place without Zed Shaw? > If somebody was standing on the street corner grabbing passerby and shaking them while shouting, "don't take on more debt than you can pay!", I'd tell them to stop being an asshole, too. What I'm trying to explain to you is that, in this case, you're the person on the street corner, Zed is the passerby, and I still think it would be rude to call you an asshole, though I will continue to point out that if your attempts are genuinely in an effort to better our community, it would be worth carefully considering whether they are in fact in the community's best interest.