undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnomel3y ago0 comments

The fact that two people responded with two different answers shows that guessing is required. Indirectness is popular with these types of topics, and I don't understand why. It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?". It's not useful, to anyone.

0 comments

freejazz3y ago

It shows the opposite, that there is so much of this going on....

> It's not useful, to anyone

What's not useful to everyone is acting like you don't read the news, can't read the news, or in the event that someone points out something in the news that you didn't, that you somehow cannot be availed of that knowledge in a way that doesn't render the argument moot. It's really stupid when you think about it that way.

Plus, aren't we supposed to be making the effort of understanding each other here. Sitting in ignorance to insist you can't think of a single example isn't really making that effort.

nomelOP3y ago

I covered your response, here, which appears to be accurate:

> It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?".

A stage was set where people can easily be placed into a box, created by an intentional lack of clarity. They can then be easily attack for not seeing things "as clearly" as they should. It's not possible for anything positive to come out of an exchange built in that context. By that, it's not useful, unless your goal is actually to create a negative exchange.

freejazz3y ago

That's a much bigger assumption than assuming someone talking about contemporary news follows it.

1 more reply

PartiallyTyped3y ago

I have found that directly calling such people out results in a knee-jerk reaction of flagging and downvotes.

It seems that any criticism of the republican leadership results in a horde of bigots mass flagging and downvotes which then prevents me from responding to attacks and responses.

Dealing with the bullshit and falsehoods always takes a lot more time than it takes to discredit facts, and HN’s approach with flagging does not help.

As a matter of fact, I had a comment where i paraphrased Popper almost word for word regarding the paradox of tolerance, and then quoted Trump saying he wants to outlaw trans people, and i got flagged.

It took for @dang to come and unflag me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

freejazz3y ago

It shows the opposite, that there is so much of this going on....

> It's not useful, to anyone

Plus, aren't we supposed to be making the effort of understanding each other here. Sitting in ignorance to insist you can't think of a single example isn't really making that effort.

nomelOP3y ago

I covered your response, here, which appears to be accurate:

> It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?".

freejazz3y ago

That's a much bigger assumption than assuming someone talking about contemporary news follows it.

1 more reply

PartiallyTyped3y ago

I have found that directly calling such people out results in a knee-jerk reaction of flagging and downvotes.

It seems that any criticism of the republican leadership results in a horde of bigots mass flagging and downvotes which then prevents me from responding to attacks and responses.

Dealing with the bullshit and falsehoods always takes a lot more time than it takes to discredit facts, and HN’s approach with flagging does not help.

It took for @dang to come and unflag me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse