Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by systemvoltage 2200 days ago
I found your response, regardless of the stance, absolutely rude.

It’s important to understand and try to find why that person is thinking this way than to shut them down in the manner you have, again with the same subjective ideology that the parent is commenting on.
1 comments
kragen 2200 days ago
> It’s important to understand and try to find why that person is thinking this way

Yeah? Try it, then.

link
systemvoltage 2200 days ago
On HN, as the topic gets more divisive, please be nice and respectful.

Think about, the other person is not stupid to feel so passionate or strongly about something. There must beSome reason. Peel the layers until you get to the bottom of it. IMO, that’s so much more interesting to study than to ignore them.

Humanity gets better when we try to get out of a local optima. When we do don’t explore radical voices, and instead ignore them, we have no possible way to wiggle out of the uncanny valley. This refactoring if you will, of the human progress guided by logical reasoning, understanding of trade offs, gathering empirical data and studying behavior is paramount to a peaceful and harmonious society.

I urge you to please listen to others and ask them why they think that way. What are the pros and cons of a particular approach. Be honest and seek truth.

link
kragen 2200 days ago
My criticism of our other interlocutor is certainly not that they are stupid. It is precisely that their rhetoric is dishonest, sabotaging precisely the dialectical process you claim to be concerned with fostering. If that's your concern, shouldn't you be criticizing them for their dishonest framing, not me?

Moreover, what they are attacking is that Sussman is enabling his students to study the software the course is run on, so they can understand its tradeoffs and guide human progress by logical reasoning, rather than treating the software as impenetrable black boxes they are forbidden to investigate and powerless to change; and they are attacking MIT's adherence to the ideology of academic freedom, one of the most effective ways to explore radical voices, get out of local optima, and seek truth.

I notice that you still haven't posted a response to their comment, whether criticizing their dishonesty as your stance implies you should, or attempting to understand their point of view as you are urging me to do. If you think it's important to find out why that person is thinking this way, then why are you making no effort to do so, instead attempting to influence me?

My best guess is that you're just feeding me a line of bullshit that you think will persuade me, rather than saying anything you sincerely believe, since your behavior in this thread is precisely the opposite of the behavior you are advocating.

Or, more briefly: "Yeah? Try it, then."

link