[cuspy]

When you come into a conversation not knowing your interlocutor's intentions, I believe it is deeply unethical, inefficient and really a complete waste of everyone's time and energy to assume based on some weak superficial heuristic rhetorical cues that they are simply repeating a divisive talking point that you've heard elsewhere.

Again it's this a priori assumption that the other person is dumb that has gotten us into this situation. It's also just bad manners. All else equal, I do not see how you can possible read what I wrote as specifically promoting anti-vaxers. I didn't say a word about vaccination. You're applying your own baggage to a simple message. Anti-vaxers are for the most part just frightened people who deserve compassion, not derision. They've simply overgeneralized a very rational fear of institutions that have indeed made some very careless decisions for profit.

If you treat every conversation as adversarial by default, you will continue making all your conversations worse. I recommend following the Gricean Maxims in your conversations. Be productive and cooperative with others until you are certain that they're not being productive and cooperative. That's when you leave the conversation. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

[StandardFuture]

And here they are downvoting you simply because you offer an alternative to deriding people you disagree with.

There has been a steadily increasing mentality that outright hostility is the only way of disagreeing (or conversing at all) with someone else. Interpreting every statement of what other people have said via a binary classifier (for or against), etc. and making judgements rather than engaging intellectual conversation.

It is all very intellectually lazy and a classic identifying mark of the ignorant and stupid. People who know that they should not be engaging in actual intellectual discussion on a topic simply downvote and run away like cowards.

Sadly, even HN is devolving alongside the rest of society at this time.

[godelski]

I can't downvote them, but I don't think this is why it happened. I think it was because my comment was about the difficulty of language and that it comes with explanations (my sibling expands on this) and the parent attacked me with something that I didn't claim. Though my sibling comment addresses that I understand the miscommunication. But if you are going to accuse others of being ungenerous you should not respond in kind. I personally do not feel the response was a generous interpretation of my comment and missed the point. I'm not going to call them a hypocrite though because my thesis is that communication is difficult.

[godelski]

> I believe it is deeply unethical, inefficient and really a complete waste of everyone's time and energy to assume based on some weak superficial heuristic rhetorical cues that they are simply repeating a divisive talking point that you've heard elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I was trying to convey something else. That language itself has limitations and that we imply things naturally. I think Tom Scott did a good video[0] explaining the high level aspects of this, but it seems like you might be aware of this. But there's much more. Language is full of cues and a priori assumptions. You cannot avoid this. The idea that "what you mean, what you say, and what is heard" being different things is not a contentious statement in linguistics and communication. Lewis Carrol's Mad Hatter's tea party scene is all about this actually. For reference[1]. What I am trying to say is that communication is hard and emphasizing that it is even harder in our current cultural/political climate. An example is priming[2], which is the exact point of things like slogans. No one expects one to write a novel to discern all the nuance of their statements, so we naturally take shortcuts and a priori assumptions are a necessity. If you ignore that these shortcuts exist then communication is difficult. (As to dog whistling[3], that is exactly the point. To exploit this feature of language. Otherwise these phrases wouldn't be coded)

A perfect example is your interpretation of my comment. I can take it one of two ways. 1) Be upset that you didn't understand what I meant. After all I did say

>> Btw, I don't think that's what you're intending to imply and I didn't take it that way, but it is important to understand how it could be taken that way.

Why should I not be upset that you are accusing me of accusing you of promoting anti-vaxers when I said completely the opposite? At least that's what I meant. Or I can go with 2) try to refine my statement to clarify confusion. I am trying #2 because, well.. my thesis is that communication is difficult and I understand the misinterpretation. I intended to mean that anti-vaxers use similar language so it wouldn't be surprising if someone was primed to think you are implying something similar (this is where interpretation comes into play). I am trying to say that this is especially difficult because of the cultural and political climate that currently exacerbates this which unfortunately leads to us trying to be more clear and trying better to interpret. And I am not trying to treat this conversation as adversarial, I apologize if it comes off that way.

To clarify, the intent of my original comment was to say that communication is difficult and the breakdown in communication that is currently happening in the conversation. Not to accuse you of anything. Though I was trying to draw a parallel to illustrate why someone might confuse you (because you are toeing the line), but that I personally did not interpret it that way.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEaMtNN_dM

[1] The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?” “Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud. “Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.” “Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics#United_St...