Comment by hypfer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hypfer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is yet another of these absolutely caustic takes that come with a veneer of intellectualism, but actually just ignorantly deconstruct reality.

Each of them weaponizing the rules of the platform that (for sensible reasons) demand you engage with the strongest interpretation of the message/argument you see.

The asymmetry of effort there is unsustainable, and that's exactly the point.

No idea how that could be solved. Maybe a meta comment like this one helps.

__

I mean if you think about it, it shouldn't be possible for some anon account to drop this and sound like it's a worthy contribution to a debate against some real person with a real name, a track record and multiple thousand dollars of bricked hardware leading up to that assessment. (Nor would it make sense for a non-anon but equally empty account)

It makes no sense, and the guarantees regarding protection of speech and all do not apply to these topics, because it's not an opinion that would get your real name in jail.

What can we do about these social exploits. Someone tell me please. It's driving me up the walls

That's a very long-ass way of saying "I disagree with this comment, I can't be bothered explaining why (too much work), so instead I think this user should be banned". I extracted nothing useful from your comment, which bears no relation to its parents that I can discern, am irritated to have spent time reading it and composing this reply, and also find your attitude pretty rich when you're also an anon account, and with less karma too. If you want to "call someone out" you've gotta be on damn solid ground and bring receipts. As it is you've just decreased the signal/noise ratio of the thread and contributed to a toxic atmosphere. I would just flag and move on but in this case I think feedback is important, and unlike you I can be bothered to explain what it is that's got me riled up.

This is what I'd call the "enabler" archetype that gets unhappy about friction (rightfully!) but takes some.. uh.. mental shortcuts when it comes to tracing back the source of it.

I'm sorry man. The problem is that this exact described dynamic (see also the other reply by me which you seem to have conveniently missed), is that it affects _all_ internet spaces and makes them utterly miserable.

I agree though that this meta stuff doesn't exactly improve SNR, and I am open for better solutions. But those need to actually solve the problem, instead of just silencing the immune response.

___

Interesting side-thought

> with less karma too

I think this might point at (one of the) root cause(s) of the dysfunction I'm pointing at here.

Internet points ceased to be a metric documenting value quite a while ago. Something something Goodhart

Gonna make this real short and simple: it's totally unclear what you're on about. You've described nothing, merely complained, infuriatingly, in the vaguest possible terms.

Don't take this as dismissive or a dunk or anything like that, but maybe an LLM can help with unpacking?

At least I know that they understand my writing and that they can help me understand other writing I don't.

I can assure you that there is a point. Whether it is worth bothering is of course your decision. I'd wager probably not, but I guess that depends. No hard feelings either way.

There is no content in your response. At all. I honestly don't think I've come across a post this devoid of content on this site before.

All I can perceive in it is a generalised hate towards some broader thing that you feel certain I'm consciously aligned with somehow, and that you think is inherently and obviously evil. Because... I don't use my real name on here? (Is your real name "hypfer"?) Because I don't have bricked hardware to back up my opinions?

If you want to convince me or others that something I wrote is wrong, stop hyperventilating and engage with at least one of the specific claims in my post. For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post.

It is correct that I have completely side-stepped your frame and not even attempted to engage with it. This is on purpose, because wanting people to engage with that specifically engineered frame is exactly the bad faith mechanism I've described.

What is interesting is what happens when these tactics are called out in a meta comment like I did, because it's actually a common thing that people start flailing like this once you side-step the script that was supposed to be followed.

Someone acting in good faith would not counter with an attack and a double-down like this, but with intent to resolve the situation (+ probably feeling a bit bad about an exchange having failed and being misunderstood).

I also like the "hyperventilating" claim. Easiest way to get out of a situation is to invalidate the source, and easiest way to do that is to claim emotions.

And the fake concern (for what, even?) of course.

> For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post.

___

Anyway. I think the convincing people is actually working quite well here. Though not in the sense you'd think.

I'm just pointing a spotlight at what I believe is violating the spirit of the rules (while staying within the letter of the rules).

What other people make out of that is their decision to make.

What on earth is happening here? I seriously have no idea what you're even talking about at this point. You seem to be five levels of meta deep and talking in circles about yourself?

Very bizarre.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com