[mistermann]

Constructive conversation on certain topics is sometimes not possible when in a forum that leans too far to the right or the left. There is a common mentality among many people where they know they are right, such that no response to differing opinions is even necessary, a downvote will do (which is doubly useful, because it censors the downvoted person for some period of time). And if you do not support the narrative, you will be downvoted. Respect is a two way street, or at least it used to be.

I'm happy to engage in a debate any time, finding someone else willing to participate is a problem when everyone is only interested in discussing the nuances of how they agree with each other.

I'll also disagree that it's not better to comment at all - voices of dissent are valuable in a democracy, silencing them is the actually dangerous path to take, but that seems to be the path that's been chosen, so we'll see how it works out.

[vanilla_nut]

I agree that constructive conversation is sometimes very very difficult depending on biases in participants. You make a good point that people sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas because "they're wrong" with little basis -- these kind of shortcuts are generally necessary in life (you'd never get anything done if you didn't sometimes use heuristics to assess the value of an argument) but also reinforce biases since your heuristics tend to favor arguments with which you agree.

However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can I participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and I have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded: because I had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

My point about "not commenting at all" wasn't so much in regard to democracy (on a political platform, most discussion is good, because you need to consider the needs of many different people), but rather just a guide to good behaviour, a la "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I think HN is made a better place by dissenting opinions (I dislike echo chambers in general) but one-off dismissive comments do not a constructive conversation make. You need to give reasoning and explain your arguments.

I also noticed that you seem a little preoccupied with downvotes. Personally, I don't think you should sweat them too much, as long as you feel like you're having constructive conversations and behaving civilly (in this comment thread, I'm happy to report that you made a lot of good points, and did a lot better than that first comment I responded to). If somebody downvotes you simply for having a different opinion, they're breaking HN rules. Downvotes, as far as I know, are supposed to be used for limiting the visibility of off-topic/poor quality comments. So if you get downvoted, your comments might be poor quality... or you might just be off topic. This thread is awfully off-topic, but I personally believe it's good quality discussion, so if it gets downvoted, I don't mind much: I still benefited, but it might get hidden from general readers. That's OK.

Anyway, thank you for responding to my (probably slightly-too-critical) comment in a reasonable way where you explained your thoughts. I apologize for misjudging you based on your previous comment.

[mistermann]

> You make a good point that people sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas because "they're wrong" with little basis -- these kind of shortcuts are generally necessary in life (you'd never get anything done if you didn't sometimes use heuristics to assess the value of an argument)

YES! The problem is, who besides you and I realize this, nowadays? As far as I can tell, and believe me I'm sincerely looking for it, I feel like people are falling into some sort of a zombie state. Reddit has been like this for quite some time now, I honestly think it is spreading to HN now, at least on any topic that has a non-technical, non-purely-objective component.

> However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can I participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and I have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded: because I had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

That's me lashing out at you due to my frustration with the new culture of close-mindedness around here. 100% wrong on my part no doubt, but being reasonable doesn't do shit so might as well join the party and get an adrenalin shot I guess is my thinking.

> If somebody downvotes you simply for having a different opinion, they're breaking HN rules

That didn't used to be true, because there have been discussions about just that. Currently, it's not even mentioned in Guidelines or FAQ afaict. (I've been breaking a few of these lately tbh.)

> So if you get downvoted, your comments might be poor quality

My main frustration is, you can post a substantive, reasoned comment, and rather than a reasoned disagreement, just downvotes. And fast. That by itself is not so big a deal, it's the intellectual swagger (my interpretation, of course) that so many people carry, but can't piece together a decent argument. Again, this is pretty much what reddit has become, but it's sad to see even HN isn't immune.

> I apologize for misjudging you based on your previous comment.

I can be a jerk from time to time.

Thanks for replying by the way, encountering someone who actually thinks, even if it's differently than me (not that it's the case here), helps restore my faith in humanity.

[icebraining]

The problem with your previous comment is that it's not even clear from what are you dissenting.

[mistermann]

Fair enough, but it wouldn't have made any difference. Disagreement with this particular aspect of the local culture will get you a downvote, not a discussion. Any discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture, to teach you the "facts" of "how things are".

Jonathan Haidt has studied this psychological phenomenon quite extensively and in my opinion it does a good job of explaining the recent unusual behavior of the public, it's a shame no one's interested.

The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

[grzm]

I've found Haidt's work very useful. One of the things I've taken from Haidt is how important both sides of the communication are. Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here ("ny discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture" and "it's a shame no one's interested") does exactly the opposite, regardless of how accurate you might feel the description is.

If you're looking for nuance and constructive discussion, it's crucial to put that foot forward yourself. And understanding, given the climate, that it's likely going to be a lot of work, as you're working against built-in human psychological biases that are unfortunately being reinforced by many trends in media, both traditional and online. Loading your discourse with the phrases you do here are working against that. I'm glad that you've found Haidt interesting in some way. Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it. There's no quick fix.

[mistermann]

I mostly agree, however:

> Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here

> Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it.

My argument is that HN is increasingly becoming a ~"progressive, illiberal echo chamber", where dissenting ideas are not welcome or open for discussion, and censored (to the degree that people like me often have to wait up to several hours or until the next day (in which case the discussion is effectively over) to post a comment as I am almost always in the penalty box, for the reasons being discussed here).

If that's true, should the onus be only on the censored side to fix the situation?

If you believe my claim isn't true:

- do you believe that it is possible for any community to be like this?

- do you believe HN has any imperfections at all in this respect?

[grzm]

If you think the problem is solely (or mostly) on one side (regardless of which side that is), then there's no point on continuing this discussion, as you're completely ignoring my opening point: that good communication requires all sides to participate in a constructive manner. You must take into account the effect your behavior and words have, beyond your intent, and beyond what you believe the content of what you're trying to convey. You need to take into account the human in general, and if you know more about the human you're engaging with, what you know of them.

If that's not something you believe, take to heart, and practice, you're part of the problem, and it's not worth my while to continue attempting to engage. This is regardless of one's ideological views, and something Haidt hammers home repeatedly.

Edit to add: Of course HN has imperfections. (And to answer your other question society has imperfections: to suggest otherwise is facile and disingenuous.) Online discourse is hard, and new, and we haven't come close to figuring out the best ways to do so. That doesn't excuse each of us taking responsibility for trying to make it the best we can.

[mistermann]

Ok, maybe I'm a complete autist, I simply can't understand where you're coming from.

> If you think the problem is solely (or mostly) on one side (regardless of which side that is), then there's no point on continuing this discussion

Literally, you are saying that unless I don't believe that the "guilt" is exactly 50/50, you won't continue the discussion? I'm communicating in good faith am I not? If not, what am I doing wrong?

Or, is the problem that I'm not agreeing with you? Because that is exactly what this feels like to me, and it is precisely the aspect of the recent HN culture that I'm complaining about.

There is no shortage of conservative science-hating idiots on forums, is that what I am? Does it seem likely that the person who first mentions Jonathan Haidt, and links to a talk very closely related to this subject, is the same type of person "who believes 100% of a communication problem is on the other side"? Political discussion is difficult, that's my point. Human beings of both political stripes suffer from the same psychological shortcomings. I am aware of this. I am pointing this out. I regularly get censored (via time-outs in the penalty box), not for posting crap (which I admittedly do on occasion, largely out of extended frustration from what I'm complaining about), but because I disagree with the general political sentiment. But then if one reads the HN guidelines, considering a downvote as a means of disagreement is correct behavior, expecting anything else is probably bordering on mentally retarded and I should just take the hint.

I suppose as a last request, I'll ask for a favor: what should I have written in my previous reply? Other than just completely agreeing with you (which I don't, and makes conversation a bit pointless), I honestly can't think of anything that would be appropriate.