6 ms·

(For me) the kicker in your response was: than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect Who then, is worth of your time and/or respect? What is yo

by cpayne 12y ago

(For me) the kicker in your response was: than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect Who then, is worth of your time and/or respect? What is your criteria? Fine by me to have your opinion. But at least be able to back it up with some substance.

mreiland 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a clear difference between someone with a differing opinion and someone with a flawed thought process. I'm ok with a person telling me C++ is the most horrible thing since sliced bread despite my love for the language. I'm not ok with someone telling me allocation/deallocation in C++ is slower than C# because some article on the internet talked about allocation without going into the cost of deallocation. One of those is understandable, the other is flat out wrong and if you choose to hold to that opinion then you're going to get dismissed as someone whose thought process is too faulty to trust. And I have better things to do with my time.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  Rather than getting yourself wound up with faulty thinking over something that's clearly wrong, is it not just better to show them the facts? It's quicker than arguing too.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    Do you seriously think someone who dismisses people so quickly gets wound up about it? The entire point of dismissing them is to avoid wasting time on them, what in the world gives you the impression I'm getting emotional about it? To answer your question, I'm 36 years old. I've been online for a quite a while. It took me a lot of years but I did eventually learn the lesson. On the internet people are never wrong and even citing sources gets you drug into yet another stupid conversation you don't want to be involved in. I didn't invent the idea of "don't argue with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". But I wholeheartedly agree with it.
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      The "live and let live" approach you're describing works, I agree that it's a necessary part of being online, arguing with everyone you disagreed with would be tiring. Couple of points... 1. You said before that you have had conversations with people about whether MRI had a GIL. In hindsight, do you agree it would've been preferable to link to a recent article about that GIL and then leave if it was wasn't sinking in? 2. I know I've made mistakes in the past. If I make a mistake in something I've said, does that exclude me from being able to learn from it? How will you know who is capable of learning without exploring their reasoning?
- dasil003 12y ago
  You're setting up a huge strawman. The new guideline is not asking you to suffer fools. It's to give people the benefit of the doubt, because in online conversation, there is dramatically more room for interpretation than in face-to-face conversation. HN doesn't have a problem with listening to knowledgeable people and speaking the blunt truth. It does, however, have a problem with civility, and addressing that by asking people to be a bit nicer does not merit a sky-is-falling response that straightforward honesty is going to be chucked out the window. Frankly, given the personality type here, there is no slippery slope anywhere in sight.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    My comment being downvoted so harshly is evidence to the contrary. And I get it, you're going to explain to me why my "tone" or some other such thing is the reason it's getting downvoted. But here's the thing. I don't give a shit. internet points aren't my thing. But what I do know is that I gave a "straightforward honest" response and it got downvoted to hell by the very people asking for others to "be charitable". As to the specifics of your response, you can't quote me saying anything about the guideline not allowing me to suffer fools. You can't even quote me implying it, but you responded to that idea anyway.
    - dasil003 12y ago
      LOL. You're being downvoted because you're not even engaging with my argument, tone is the least of your problems here.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        So true, and the downvotes are a great example of what one should do instead of shitting all over people/opinions/posts/projects/etc. As long as at least one side in every HN argument is willing to speak less and vote more, reasoned discussion can prevail.
      - mreiland 12y ago
        That would be the dismissing part :)
- Squarel 12y ago
  The difference is in how you respond to the person. So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard. Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? Why would it be different online? Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board. Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. I always view it as "I do not have to persuade the author of anything, but perhaps someone reads my position and changes their mind" In which case, I would rather not come across as if I was about to burst a blood vessel, or incapable of pointing out flaws in an argument without resorting to "Your thought process is too faulty to trust".
  - mreiland 12y ago
    > So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. I would dismiss them and go on with my life. > Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? I'm curious as to why you think my statement about dismissing people implies "screaming" at them? When I dismiss someone I dismiss them. I have no interest in changing their mind or teaching them something. I am not here to teach the denizens of the world how to read up on subjects before speaking of them. I'm here for myself, no one else. > Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board. You don't get to tell me how much time I should spend on them before dismissing them ("walking away"). But see, I didn't specify either. Your statement about walking away implies you agree with me about dismissing them. > Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. Why do I care?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      This thread is about commenting on an online forum. If yu are not commenting the entire thread can be ignored. You have replied to the thread. Thus, you are not talking about things you imagine when you read a dumb comment because noone cares about that. You are talking about the style of comments you leave so i'm not sure why you're talking about when you're not leaving comments.
- redler 12y ago
  Above, you wrote: I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect. I understand that feeling. Life is short. But why take the time to respond at all, then, dismissively or otherwise? "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." [1] For me, sometimes a charitable interpretation of a "foolish" question or comment provides a framework to think about, or write about, what I see as the more salient point. Responding is optional, after all, so why not respond from the perspective of charitable discourse? [1] Bruce Lee (!)

by cpayne 12y ago

mreiland 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a clear difference between someone with a differing opinion and someone with a flawed thought process. I'm ok with a person telling me C++ is the most horrible thing since sliced bread despite my love for the language. I'm not ok with someone telling me allocation/deallocation in C++ is slower than C# because some article on the internet talked about allocation without going into the cost of deallocation. One of those is understandable, the other is flat out wrong and if you choose to hold to that opinion then you're going to get dismissed as someone whose thought process is too faulty to trust. And I have better things to do with my time.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
Rather than getting yourself wound up with faulty thinking over something that's clearly wrong, is it not just better to show them the facts? It's quicker than arguing too.
- mreiland 12y ago
  Do you seriously think someone who dismisses people so quickly gets wound up about it? The entire point of dismissing them is to avoid wasting time on them, what in the world gives you the impression I'm getting emotional about it? To answer your question, I'm 36 years old. I've been online for a quite a while. It took me a lot of years but I did eventually learn the lesson. On the internet people are never wrong and even citing sources gets you drug into yet another stupid conversation you don't want to be involved in. I didn't invent the idea of "don't argue with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". But I wholeheartedly agree with it.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    The "live and let live" approach you're describing works, I agree that it's a necessary part of being online, arguing with everyone you disagreed with would be tiring. Couple of points... 1. You said before that you have had conversations with people about whether MRI had a GIL. In hindsight, do you agree it would've been preferable to link to a recent article about that GIL and then leave if it was wasn't sinking in? 2. I know I've made mistakes in the past. If I make a mistake in something I've said, does that exclude me from being able to learn from it? How will you know who is capable of learning without exploring their reasoning?
dasil003 12y ago
You're setting up a huge strawman. The new guideline is not asking you to suffer fools. It's to give people the benefit of the doubt, because in online conversation, there is dramatically more room for interpretation than in face-to-face conversation. HN doesn't have a problem with listening to knowledgeable people and speaking the blunt truth. It does, however, have a problem with civility, and addressing that by asking people to be a bit nicer does not merit a sky-is-falling response that straightforward honesty is going to be chucked out the window. Frankly, given the personality type here, there is no slippery slope anywhere in sight.
- mreiland 12y ago
  My comment being downvoted so harshly is evidence to the contrary. And I get it, you're going to explain to me why my "tone" or some other such thing is the reason it's getting downvoted. But here's the thing. I don't give a shit. internet points aren't my thing. But what I do know is that I gave a "straightforward honest" response and it got downvoted to hell by the very people asking for others to "be charitable". As to the specifics of your response, you can't quote me saying anything about the guideline not allowing me to suffer fools. You can't even quote me implying it, but you responded to that idea anyway.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    LOL. You're being downvoted because you're not even engaging with my argument, tone is the least of your problems here.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      So true, and the downvotes are a great example of what one should do instead of shitting all over people/opinions/posts/projects/etc. As long as at least one side in every HN argument is willing to speak less and vote more, reasoned discussion can prevail.
    - mreiland 12y ago
      That would be the dismissing part :)
Squarel 12y ago
The difference is in how you respond to the person. So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard. Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? Why would it be different online? Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board. Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. I always view it as "I do not have to persuade the author of anything, but perhaps someone reads my position and changes their mind" In which case, I would rather not come across as if I was about to burst a blood vessel, or incapable of pointing out flaws in an argument without resorting to "Your thought process is too faulty to trust".
- mreiland 12y ago
  > So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. I would dismiss them and go on with my life. > Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? I'm curious as to why you think my statement about dismissing people implies "screaming" at them? When I dismiss someone I dismiss them. I have no interest in changing their mind or teaching them something. I am not here to teach the denizens of the world how to read up on subjects before speaking of them. I'm here for myself, no one else. > Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board. You don't get to tell me how much time I should spend on them before dismissing them ("walking away"). But see, I didn't specify either. Your statement about walking away implies you agree with me about dismissing them. > Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. Why do I care?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    This thread is about commenting on an online forum. If yu are not commenting the entire thread can be ignored. You have replied to the thread. Thus, you are not talking about things you imagine when you read a dumb comment because noone cares about that. You are talking about the style of comments you leave so i'm not sure why you're talking about when you're not leaving comments.
redler 12y ago
Above, you wrote: I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect. I understand that feeling. Life is short. But why take the time to respond at all, then, dismissively or otherwise? "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." [1] For me, sometimes a charitable interpretation of a "foolish" question or comment provides a framework to think about, or write about, what I see as the more salient point. Responding is optional, after all, so why not respond from the perspective of charitable discourse? [1] Bruce Lee (!)