Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

And note that you sought out a comment not addressed to you...

Am I correct in thinking you are new here, and unfamiliar with the format of HN?

Just FYI, comments on HN are usually not addressed to any particular person. The format here is actually an open discussion that anyone can participate in.

aggressively demanding that somebody educate you

Could you link to the comment of mine which you believe is an "aggressive demand"? In terms of literally reading the text, none of my comments are a demand for anything.

I'm also confused by your suggestions to pay a therapist. Do you also believe that people who agree with you are uninterested in learning if they fail to pay a therapist, or is it only people who disagree with you that you believe require mental help?

View on HN

Just FYI, you can click their name and view their profile to see how old the account is.

I can't speak to the "not addressed to you" portion of the GP's post, because I do believe than HN benefits from its open discussion format, that allows for both threaded discussion and open commenting. But, I would venture to say that it's quite deceitful, i.e. an "aggressive demand", to drop in what you apparently know (c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354198) will be an analogy (this one here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366) that inspires "negative emotions" without providing any supporting arguments or information in the same post.

Rather than starting from a point that (you do seem to know) will be inflammatory, why not start from claims directly related to the topic at hand, and work your way up to the point where the logic of making the analogy is immaculately clear? In this thread, you start with a 'jump' (straight to the civil rights movement), and then trickle out the details in children comments [1,2,3,5] as to why your point is relevant, and why people should ignore their emotional responses [4,5] like you do. Inducing emotional responses in others with one's writing is inevitable -- do you actually want to convince people of why your point holds water (using something like the strategy I propose), or do you only want to evoke anger and get people turning away in a huff (what you've done in this thread)?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354048

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353661

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354108

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354198

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13357684

> In this thread, you start with a 'jump' (straight to the civil rights movement), and then trickle out the details in children comments [1,2,3,5] as to why your point is relevant,

It should be very clear from the original post why the point is relevant. Some people might need some extra explaining, but they try their best to need it.

The depths to which this thread has reached suggests that the point's relevance (or perhaps more appropriately, "appropriateness") is not as clear as you seem to think.

Your slight towards other posters aside, what is easier to change? The HN-commentariat at large ("they try their best to need it")? Or, each of us as individuals, trying to compose our arguments and points in a widely receivable, understandable, and relatable way? (That is, what I am trying to encourage above.)

...without providing any supporting arguments or information in the same post.

Nothing in the comments you linked to is, textually speaking, a demand. Would you describe my comment as an "aggressive demand" if I were simply expressing ideas that are completely conventional?

work your way up to the point where the logic of making the analogy is immaculately clear?

Assuming I were expressing conventional ideas, would it be necessary for me to address every possible counterpoint in the original comment to avoid making an "aggressive demand"?

I think you are wrong in suggesting that people didn't understand the logic. Here are a bunch of comments that understood just fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354341

Inducing emotional responses in others with one's writing is inevitable -- do you actually want to convince people of why your point holds water (using something like the strategy I propose), or do you only want to evoke anger and get people turning away in a huff (what you've done in this thread)?

Paul Graham wrote a great essay a while back called "how to disagree". Levels 0-2 (name calling, ad hominem and responding to tone, respectively) are quite common in the broader world. As Trump vs Crooked Hillary demonstrates, level 0 is quite effective at persuading the masses. http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

On HN, I generally make the good faith assumption that we can discuss things at a higher level (e.g. 4 or higher). This thread definitely demonstrates that as a belief about the world, this is probably not super accurate.

Is it your genuine belief that if I phrased my comment differently, I would have avoided the level 0-2 reactions to it? How would you have phrased it?

Yes, this the kind of argumentative jackassery I don't have time for.

You of course can tell how long I've been here, especially since I said so in the post you responded to. You of course can figure out that I'm familiar with the format of HN. You of course know I have already declined to educate you. You of course are not confused, but are conflating social help (which is what you are asking me and others for) with mental help (which is not a bad thing either). And you of course declined to address my actual point, instead picking out things to snipe at.

These are all bad-faith argumentative techniques. They are exactly why I'm not interested in in answering your questions. They are not sincere questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com