[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.

[grzm]

Tribalism is a powerful bias, and one we need to work against if we're to have reasonable discourse with people we might not necessarily agree with. That means we must actively work against that, which includes not reinforcing "us" vs "them" dynamic, which is what you do when you continue to use language like "HN is increasingly becoming a ~"progressive, illiberal echo chamber"". Regardless of how true that may be, that might work in a long-form, thoughtful essay, but it definitely doesn't work in an online forum in short soundbites. It comes off as labelling people into groups and name calling. That's just another form of tribalism.

You also need to be charitable, which means when I bring up "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", providing examples of where you're doing this, you don't put words in my mouth such as "unless I don't believe that the "guilt" is exactly 50/50". And you certainly don't promote a constructive discussion where we're talking about how to promote better conversation by accusing me of requiring you to agree with everything I say. There's a difference between providing a framework, a set of expectations where people can usefully discuss contentious issues and requiring people to agree on those contentious issues. I don't know how to have a conversation when the focus is on blame and pointing fingers rather than on what actually move things forward, and I also know that if I don't think a conversation is worth having or continuing (for whatever reason, including that I don't know how to move forward), it's best that I leave it.

You mention "I honestly can't think of anything that would be appropriate" in considering alternative replies: there's nothing wrong with not replying at all. Sometimes that's the right choice. Another option is to look at Rapoport's rules of criticism as a guide when you feel you're stuck:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

You also need to be aware of what you leave yourself open to. While you may not be one of the "conservative science-hating idiots on forums", when you use similar language ("re-education lecture"? really?), you aren't doing yourself any favors by making it easy for others to lump you into those groups. It would be nice if people were perfectly rational and able to always make such nuanced distinctions, but you know that's not the case. You need to take that into account because that's how people are.

You need to be better than those you decry. You don't get to point and say "that's not fair, look what they're doing", because that's all some will hear. You don't get to say in so many words "you need to listen to me because you're ignorant of your biases and I'm telling you the hard truths." You don't get to label people into groups. You don't get to have a chip on your shoulder, even when you see the chips on others'. Yeah, you might feel like you're fighting with a hand tied behind your back. But the point is that we're not supposed to be fighting or arguing. We're supposed to be figuring out how to work through things together.

If you think or know you're treading on sensitive topics or at (or across) the edges of the community's expectations, you need to take that into account and be even more reflective in what you say. Those that already agree with you aren't those you really need to reach; and realistically, you're not going to reach people who aren't willing to listen to you. You have a chance with those who are still open-minded enough to listen to you. You need to take advantage of that, couching what you say in ways that are going to be effective in encouraging them to believe you're reasonable and someone who's worth listening to in the future. People stop listening when they're feeling attacked and put on the defensive, so you need to endeavor not to do that (and to recognize when you have, learn from it, and likely back off). From my experience that's the same online and off.

You know this is tough stuff. You've said so yourself. And people make mistakes, both in speaking/writing and in listening/reading. It makes it all the more important to be unrelenting in being charitable and constructive in discourse, in working against the biases we both know are there. And very likely HN isn't the proper forum for contentious stuff. The bandwidth's too limited. Our reputations aren't on the line like they are in real social interactions. But if you intend to, I encourage you to take this stuff to heart and work on the only thing you immediately can, which is your own actions and behavior.

Anyway, that's it for me.

[vanilla_nut]

As the original poster who started this chain (by criticizing /u/mistermann's comment) I'd just like to say that I found this exchange both thought-provoking and civil, especially given its contentious beginnings. I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to express your opinions in a clear, respectful way. As it turns out, I'm also a fan of Jonathan Haidt -- I'm currently reading through several of his books at varied paces -- and you've clearly really taken the time to understand and convey some of his key ideas here. Sites like Hacker News are a great deal better due to commenters like you.

[mistermann]

I am constantly on the lookout for people whose studies are related to what the f has "suddenly" gone wrong with humanity. I really think Jonathan is on to something (although at the same time, I sense he's trying to sell a lot of books, but what can you do).

I just listened to:

#03 Under The Skin with Russell Brand & Adam Curtis - Do We Really Want Change?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBy08P7tHPQ

Adam Curtis is a documentary film maker, his most recent one is fairly famous, Hypernormalization. I haven't seen it because I thought it was a hardcore conspiracy theorist movie, but now I think that's not the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis#Filmography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

If you can recommend anyone else with interesting opinions on the insanity of the current world, please share.

[mistermann]

Very sound advice, and I'd like to extend my extremely sincere thanks for you taking the time to write it.

I think the key takeaway is that HN is simply not the forum for political discussions, so probably the best strategy for me is to not open any comments on those topics.

Thanks again.