Hacker News Reader

Comment by danilocampos | Hacker News Reader

I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal.

I personally find Dave's attitude of self-entitlement to be very toxic. Coming first doesn't elevate you above reproach or scrutiny. Success and progress require questioning and even defying authority. I'm incredibly distrustful of anyone who would discourage that. So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves.

As a human being, I'm incredibly full of shit. On an ongoing basis. And often times I don't know it. So I kinda need people to point it out to me. This goes for nearly everyone else too. Anyone who says otherwise, who suggests they're above that for any reason, is trying to sell you something.

View on HN

> I write to my standard. You write to yours. We each get little buttons where people vote. That's the deal.

But that's also the problem. HN has a way of rewarding toxic comments. I particularly notice this in drive-by-comments where presumably-long-time users create a new account just to make a flame post. Turns out, this kind of cloak and dagger isn't even needed most of the time, because you can see how they're getting rewarded for this.

Is that really the kind of community we want to be?

I'm far from saying your standard sucks, by the way. You can sometimes come across as very harsh, and so can I - but I don't think our comments were the lowest ones yesterday. Still, I must admit that in hindsight I wish I would have done better.

> So he's going to demand people be impressed – and I'm going to demand they think for themselves.

I didn't see it that way. I think what should be demanded is a more constructive discussion with less ad hominem attacks. Constructive doesn't mean worshipping or even praising, it means discussing based on merit and facts.

I also believe we could demand less pettiness of ourselves. For example, a minute ago someone just downvoted all the comments I made today. That may be a valid interaction, but it reeks of vindictiveness. It might have been more productive to invest that same effort into posting a dissenting opinion.

I had a quick look at using the hnsearch api to build some kind of filtered return of comments, which removed posts from any user who had just created the account (or had a <1 avg karma), IE: drive by accounts.

I couldn't work it out quick enough to warrant further time investment, because I'm not convinced if it is actually a good solution.

Having not been in the same situation as Dave Winer I don't know how I'd actually respond. I like to think that I've been on the internet long enough to realize that toxic anon comments should roll off like water on a duck. But maybe I'd get super depressed and go cry in a corner.

I probably won't find out any time soon, because I have nothing which would gather a huge focus on HN.

Final question on the end of my ramble, is this all #famouspeopleproblems?

Yesterday, in response to Dave's post, you wrote, "As a meta comment, Winer is a unfortunate last name..."

If that's the standard you hold yourself to, I'd encourage you to expect more from yourself.

Would you like to explain what about that you find so offensive? Because that whole line of indignation really felt like so much pearl clutching to me.

Dude writes really whiney content. And then there's his name. That's super unfortunate. That's not, like, a slam on his family or a dig about his person. That's just a linguistic observation.

If I made compost bins, for example, that's a completely legit parallel for someone to point out, even if silly.

Why don't you just flag articles from his domain?

Why don't you restrict yourself to commenting on the things he's sad rather than commenting on him?

Usually I do that. Sometimes I get bored.

(The flagging, that is. As to talking about him, it's hard not to when his favorite subject in his writing seems to be himself, no?)

I've heard people insult Dave's last name many times over the years. You are the first I've seen that meant it as Winer == Whiner. It is more commonly trying to call him a reference to the male anatomy, which is dumb and offensive. I think that's the way many would have taken your comment.

How is it meant to be pronounced?

You can here him say it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer

It is Wine-r (like the grape beverage with an r on the end)

I still don't see how that is the offensive part. Being called a penis (or any synonym) can obviously be offensive - though it can also be used in an endearing way as well - and tying that into someone's name doesn't, in my opinion, make it any better or any worse. I suppose maybe if someone called Winer has spent a lifetime listening to the same sort-of-pun then maybe the compounded effect would make it worse, but as a general rule, if that was my surname, I can't see myself caring about whether an insult connects to my surname or not, either way I'm being called a dick.

That's not, like, a slam on his family or a dig about his person. That's just a linguistic observation

It is reasonable to expect that people with that family name might think otherwise. That's why it is usually considered very bad taste to comment on people's names, even when you don't mean it that way.

As a rule, never comment on something beyond persons control: age, gender, color, nationality, family name, are all off-limits. There are exceptions to the rule, but just following this rule will make a huge difference in how you appear while only losing ability to comment on 1-2% of the content when the persons immutable traits are actually relevant. It's a great tradeoff and a huge win for your image and your peers.

That rule is because people will often be upset (perhaps overly so) by people attacking these topics. Nobody was attacking his surname, and he wasn't upset by anyone mentioning his surname, he was upset by people saying he was whining. They would have been making that comment no matter what his surname is.

I actually liked his piece that was submitted yesterday (and lead to all of this), but I don't get why so many people are making a big deal out of a quick throwaway joke that involved wordplay on his name. If someone mentioned to me that both my names begin with a "c", which is suitable because I'm a cunt, I'd be upset at being called a cunt, not the fact that my name was tied into that.

Yeah, judging from just the quote, that strikes me as decent wordplay worth at least a minor chuckle. Lighten up, folks.

Doubled down, good for you!

Eh, I think Mr. Winer is being hypocritical, whiney, etc. I also think folks here are right: You shouldn't take digs at a person's name.

My last name sounds like a common word but is spelled differently. I briefly was in circumstances where people routinely drew that parallel. They seemed to think they were the only one clever enough to notice the similarity. Uh, no. I heard it constantly for several months. It isn't clever. Really. A five year old could do the same.

While dozens of sanctimonious posts fall flat, yours calls me out for banality, which is an infinitely stronger argument. Well said.

The post was a couple of stories, combined to make a point. Nothing more than that. If you're hearing a tone, it's your head. If you were being truthful, you'd say "When I think of Dave Winer, this is how I feel..." Because that's all that's actually happening.

Agreed. Playground take downs have no place in this forum.

> We each get little buttons where people vote.

Except we don't. I have an upvote button, but not a downvote button. I haven't reached the magical karma threshold for the downvote button, and my account is ~3.5 years old.

I think this may be contributing to the negativity OP is talking about. I don't have the option of using the downvote, so if I disapprove of content, the only way I can do so is to post a negative comment.

I know a lot of people in the community consider this a good thing, but I think it also leads to a lot of negative comments that wouldn't otherwise get posted.

There are different standards for public discourse; you should try to conform to the rules laid down by the community we're in, not impose your own standards on others. Also, given that Dave Winer reads and posts here, you could think of your posts as talking about him in a room when he's present. Perhaps you would moderate your tone and insults a little if he were actually present? This sort of incivility is what destroys a community, drives off positive contributions, and lets the trolls take over (see 4chan, reddit, kuro5hin), so I'd urge you to reconsider your use of such a hostile tone in public. There's nothing wrong with criticism, but making it personal, name calling and condemning someone as 'toxic' is not what I've come to expect here - frankly I'd expect better.

As to the upvotes you received, I suspect this happens mostly because there is no downvote on articles, and people use upvoting the first negative comment they see as a quick and easy substitute to announce their disagreement with the article in question, or even the title if they haven't read the article. I'm not sure I'd see upvotes as validation of your views, tempting as it is to do so. I've come to think voting either way here on HN should subtract karma, to make people really think about their decision to upvote and stop the flamebait and snarky comments floating to the top.

I would say every single thing I said to Dave's face. It's not name-calling to point out he's whining. That post was a cheap shot to get attention and if we're going to hold people to higher standards, let's start with the guy whose posturing would suggest he should know better.

I think Udo's reference to standards is a bit misleading. "Angels of our Better Nature" improve HN, and I take that to be his context. That said, I find it difficult to delete comments that have been upvoted. OK, I find it impossible to do so. Upvotes convince me that I am right.

> "Angels of our Better Nature" improve HN, and I take that to be his context.

I think that's what I meant but just to make sure: when I'm talking about standards a part of it is to make an effort to contribute to a fruitful discussion. It's about trying to raise the level of the discussion rather than lower it.

I see it as a problem that polemic comments have a tendency to get easy upvotes, and that's ultimately a cultural issue around here. What makes this problematic is the fact that ultimately it's a self-defeating behavior. It's not enough to just push personal responsibility aside and point at the voting buttons as a source of morality and motivation (as I believe Danilo just did). To keep a community valuable, more effort is required than simply relying on populism and the conviction that the other users have to accomodate you.

And just because I'm probably sounding pretty sanctimonious, let me repeat that I don't think I did particularly well in this regard up to now either.

I'll let you say it. I believe I understand.

Strong emotions spark passionate writing, and passionate writing is entertaining. Being offended, angry, or insulted is an easy state to achieve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com