Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments | Hacker News Reader

Stop people from progressing the conversation without addressing your arguments

behan.substack.com

15 pointsbehan12 comments

The example isn't very good or maybe I didn't get it. The girlfriend concedes that the guy is right (and obviously doesn't care) but tells him the framing is wrong and he should be thinking about the thoughtfulness angle, not worrying that the underlying industry is a scam. As someone who rants about stuff a lot, I recognize the discussion. Nobody cares that you think the entire X industry is a scam, they want to have a simpler discussion.

I don’t understand the example either.

I’m not sure how much more one can address an argument than agree with it completely, which is what the girlfriend in the example did.

Terrible example. Josephine did take the BF's arguments into consideration. She said "yes you're right on all these points but even so it is a more personal gift than just cash". Unless the BF pits forward another idea he lost the discussion.

The main point is valid - don't let the other party gloss over your arguments by just going on tangent - but the "case study" and content of this post are awful.

I'm no Casablanca, but this person does not seem to have the full picture.

"OK, but" does not always mean "put everything you just said to the side. Here is the REAL topic", it is quite literally adding stuff to consider to the discussion. And you can respond to it as such.

E.g. "yeah true there is more thought extended to it, but I think its a mixed message because its also kind of a waste. What do you think about that wastefulness anyhow?" Is completely normal and does what the article is implying, without it being TOO standoffish. You address what was said, then ask a specific question about your previous point(s). Its courteous but firm.

Obviously people who don't argue in good faith and try to talk over you won't let you get a piece in here, but that's a separate issue IMO, and those people aren't really worth the trouble.

> Force them to address your argument before allowing the conversation to progress.

That's generally boorish and can make for short uninformative conversations. If someone evades your argument multiple times, like it or not that's an answer.

> That's generally boorish

True. But trying to persuade me of their position without being willing to address my counterarguments is also somewhat boorish. (Though I suppose the HN guidelines would encourage me to not reciprocate in kind...)

> and can make for short uninformative conversations.

If they won't even address my arguments, that's already an uninformative conversation. I wouldn't have a problem with it being a short one, too.

> If someone evades your argument multiple times, like it or not that's an answer.

Yes, it is. And quickly ending the conversation after they have ignored two or three chances seems, to me at least, like a good way to avoid wasting my time. Politely ending it would be probably a good thing, but I often fall short of that.

LOL, lots of the arguments against gift cards could just as easily be levied against cash - easy to lose? not necessarily accepted everywhere? not always enough to buy what you want?

Josephine didn’t want to get bogged down into a rant about Big Plastic, and just wanted to pick out the damn gift.

No method of payment is accepted everywhere. Not only is cash accepted in far more situations than gift cards, that's obviously the case. If we were truly debating this point and not shooting the shit on the Internet I would go after you, rhetorically, for interviewing dishonesty.

And you wouldn’t be wrong to do so! That said, I was legitimately underwhelmed by the protagonist’s (?) arguments for why cash was the superior medium of exchange.

I say this as someone who never uses cash, but deeply dislikes both gift cards AND the trend of non-cash-accepting establishments.

I am amused the clearly gender-normative behaviour here which could easily be considered sexist.

But let's be clear: the thiught that counts here could be otherwise re-interpreted as "I am buying you this gift card specifically because I know you like this brand and will most surely use it". Of course this argument gets more meek if you are just buying some "generic" gift card in which case you could just give someone cash.

Besides, a lot of gift cards come with some other bonuses (like 20% off, etc) so that could be appropriated too.

The general idea of the post though is correct, except in this case the usual gender-normative behaviour is happening: the woman stops arguing with her boyfriend because he's not willing to listen and it's just not that important to win that argument. She will still buy the gift card, and he'll go to his friends whining about her "irrational" behaviour.

>I am amused the clearly gender-normative behaviour here which could easily be considered sexist.

So what's the offensive and sexist gender-normative behavior here? Is it that Jimmy is a man who happens to have a girlfriend named Josephine? You do know that millions of couples around the world exist who are exactly like this and not at all existentially ashamed and politically chagrined by being with each other? So did the post do incorrect-think by making even a minimal reference to a heterosexual couple in an extremely normal, completely common context between them?

Awesome discourse and discussion. My main takeaway here is that my example could be greatly improved aha.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com