[throw10920]

> Probably that's good?

Amigdala-hijacking, emotional manipulation, and categorical dismissiveness of others' criticisms are clearly not good.

> Look at this Nim thread

Yes, I'm looking at it, and I'm seeing a lot of good criticism (including the second-to-top comment[1], some of which is out of love for the language.

You cherry-picked a tiny subset of comments that are negative, over half of which aren't even about the topic of the post - which means that they're completely unrelated to my comment, and you either put them there because you didn't read my comment carefully before replying to it, or you intentionally put them there to try to dishonestly bolster your argument.

As an example of the effect I'm referring to, this recent thread on STG[2], the top comment of which starts with "Lots of bad takes in this thread" as a way of dismissing every single valid criticism in the rest of the submission.

> is it so bad to have a reminder that there's more to a discussion than shitting on things and people?

This is a dishonest portrayal of what's going on, which is that, instead of downvoting and flagging those empty put-downs, or responding to specific bad comments, malicious users post a sneering, value-less, emotionally manipulative comment at the toplevel of a submission that vaguely gestures to "negative" comments in the rest of the thread, that dismisses every legitimate criticism along with all of the bad ones. This is "sneering", and it's against the HN guidelines, as well as dishonest and value-less.

> So what? One can make correct criticism of anything. Just because you can think of a criticism doesn't make it useful, relevant, meaningful, interesting, or valuable. Some criticism might be, but not because it is criticism and accurate.

I never claimed that all criticism is "useful, relevant, meaningful, interesting, or valuable". Don't put words in my mouth.

> Are you seriously arguing that not posting a flood of every legitimate criticism means the reader's thinking skills must have been undermined? That the only time it's reasonable to be positive, optimistic, enthusiastic, or supportive, is for something which is literally perfect?

I never claimed this either.

It appears that, given the repeated misinterpretations of my points, and the malicious technique of trying to pretend that I made claims that I didn't, you're one of those dishonest people that resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way, because they know they can't actually make a coherent argument for it.

Ironic (or, perhaps not?) that someone defending emotional manipulation and dishonesty resorts to it themselves.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44931674

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44447202

[viridian]

This post is sort a pot and kettle situation, as you also write in a highly emotionally charged way.

The sub-clause "you're one of those dishonest people that resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" alone laden with emotionally manipulative affect that this reads like a self-referential example.

"You're one of those" is a phrase often, and certainly in this case, used for the purposes of othering.

"dishonest people" speaks for itself.

"resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" assumes bad faith on behalf of somebody you barely know.

There's a lot I agree with on in your post, but the irony doesn't exactly stop with jodrellblank.

[jodrellblank]

> "Amigdala-hijacking, emotional manipulation, and categorical dismissiveness of others' criticisms are clearly not good."

You stating that again doesn't make it more supported, or more clear. There's nothing automatically unbiased and unmanipulative about criticism, and there's nothing automatically justified and useful about criticism. Opening a thread where there's all criticism is (or can be) just as manipulative as a thread where there's a lot of enthusiasm. The typical geek internet response is to claim that being critical is somehow meritocratic, unbiased, real, but it isn't inherently that.

> "over half of which aren't even about the topic of the post ... you intentionally put them there to try to dishonestly bolster your argument"

I know, right?! I have to skim read and filter out piles of irrelevant miserable put-down dismissive low-thought low-effort dross and it often isn't even about the topic of the post! I intentionally put them there to try and honestly bolster my argument that opening a thread full of cynicism has a manipulative effect on the reader's emotional state and to counter your implied claim that enthusiasm is manipulative and criticism isn't.

> "the top comment of which starts with "Lots of bad takes in this thread" as a way of dismissing every single valid criticism in the rest of the submission."

But they explicitly dismiss the bad takes and not every single take? For someone who is complaining that I am putting words in your mouth and you hate it, you are putting words in their mouth which go directly against what they said. e.g. there are some takes complaining that the article is 'compelling people to work for no money' and that comment says the regulation would be met by a clear expiry date for the game on the store. The company is willing to fund it for some time before they cut their losses, and this asks them to tell the customer what that time is. That critical comment starts "I think a legal remedy here won't work." because the only legal remedy they bothered to think about is compelling people to work for free. It doesn't comment on the proposals put to governments in the article, or the movement, or even expand on much detail why they think a legal remedy can't work. But it still contributes to the miasma of "don't try things, everything's shit, don't even bother, nothing can work, nothing is worth doing, don't you know there was a flaw once, somewhere, something was tried and didn't work" which absolutely is emotionally manipulative when read in bulk.

> "I never claimed that all criticism is "useful, relevant, meaningful, interesting, or valuable". Don't put words in my mouth."

You argued that point. You said "they want to shut down criticism of something they like" as if that's a bad thing which should not be happening. If you argue that, then you think criticism has some inherent value. I say it doesn't have inherent value; there area vastly more options to criticise a thing than to praise a thing, so people who choose criticism are more likely pulling from a big pool of low effort cached thoughts, than a small pool of high effort (positive or critical) thoughts, so a critical comment is more likely a bad comment than a good comment. Dismissing a whole lot of critical comments in one go is therefore a reasonable response.

> "I never claimed this either."

OK let's go with, you said: "undermines people's critical thinking skills" and I say "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Reading a comment which says "lots of bad takes here" does not undermine people's critical thinking skills.

My claim is more that reading a dozen comments "this library had a bug!" "this maintainer was rude to me!" "The documentation is way out of date" "I know someone who tried this in 1982 and found it was impossible" really does kill a reader's interest in looking deeper into a thing, and such criticisms are both factually correct and low effort, low value, and quite reasonable to be dismissed in bulk without "responding to specific bad comments" particularly because the ratio of possible criticisms to possible praise is something approaching infinity-to-one. (even if a thing is absolutely perfect, people can criticise it for being the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong person, etc.).

> "you're one of those dishonest people that resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way, because they know they can't actually make a coherent argument for it."

I've made a pretty coherent argument:

- most critical comments on a HN thread are not worth reading.

- They have a detrimental effect on the topic and reader.

- Therefore there are far too many of them.

- It's justified to dismiss them in bulk, because the space of possible critical/engaging comments means the work to respond to every bad take is far too much, and the people who make low effort bad takes do not respond well to replying individually.

- You have not offered any support for your claim that reading a dismissive/positive comment "undermines critical thinking skills".

[throw10920]

> There's nothing automatically unbiased and unmanipulative about criticism, and there's nothing automatically justified and useful about criticism.

I neither claimed nor implied either of those things, and it's pretty clear that my argument rests on neither.

> I have to skim read and filter out piles of irrelevant miserable put-down dismissive low-thought low-effort dross and it often isn't even about the topic of the post!

So, you conceded that you put "evidence" in your original comment that was completely irrelevant to my points, and are trying to divert the argument.

> opening a thread full of cynicism has a manipulative effect on the reader's emotional state

This is false, and completely nonsensical. A bunch of comments from different, uncoordinated entities literally cannot be "manipulative" according to the literal dictionary definition of the word, which requires intention, which literally cannot happen with a bunch of random unassociated strangers:

"A manipulative person tries to control people to their advantage" "tending to influence or control someone or something to your advantage, often without anyone knowing it"[1]

This is you misusing language to try to bolster your point.

> counter your implied claim that enthusiasm is manipulative and criticism isn't

There is zero implication of that anywhere in my comment. That's the third time you've dishonestly put words in my mouth.

> But they explicitly dismiss the bad takes and not every single take?

Yet again, factually false, and extremely dishonest. You know very well that there's no way to tell which takes they considered to be "bad" and so that this is a general dismissal of criticism they disagree with.

> You said "they want to shut down criticism of something they like" as if that's a bad thing which should not be happening.

With the context of my original comment, which is specifically the case of the emotionally manipulative "The negativity here is amazing" type - yes, that's obviously a bad thing, because it's being done in a manipulative way that doesn't address the problems of the critical comment.

> You argued that point. [...] If you argue that, then you think criticism has some inherent value.

No, it very obviously does not. That's a very bad reading comprehension and/or logical thinking failure, and the fourth time you've put words in my mouth.

It's pretty embarrassing that I have to spell this out in so much detail, but because you repeatedly misinterpret my words and maliciously put words in my mouth, here we go: I believe that some criticism has value and some does not. The kind of "wow why is everyone so negative" categorical dismissal both dismisses valueless criticism (which is fine, in isolation) and dismisses valid criticism, which is malicious and bad. I never once said that criticism has inherent value, nor did I imply it, nor does any part of my argument rest upon that point.

> there area vastly more options to criticise a thing than to praise a thing, so people who choose criticism are more likely pulling from a big pool of low effort cached thoughts, than a small pool of high effort (positive or critical) thoughts, so a critical comment is more likely a bad comment than a good comment. Dismissing a whole lot of critical comments in one go is therefore a reasonable response.

This is an extremely bad argument. Humans are not statistical models. Thoughts are not a mathematical space that you randomly sample from. Dismissing someone's argument via emotional manipulation is evil. Categorically dismissing a bunch of comments via emotional manipulation when you have the full capability to assess the bad ones individually (via downvoting, flagging, or responding) is also evil and indicates that you are a person who either fundamentally does not have the ability to think rationally, or is malicious enough that they employ this technique anyway because they're trying to manipulate others.

> OK let's go with, you said: "undermines people's critical thinking skills" and I say "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

This is dishonest rhetorical reframing. If you write an emotionally manipulative comment that doesn't make a logical argument but uses charged language to undermine a position without actually addressing its points logically, that subverts someone's logical thinking capability by pressuring them to respond emotionally, because by definition it's a manipulative statement. That is tautologically true and needs zero evidence.

> particularly because the ratio of possible criticisms to possible praise is something approaching infinity-to-one

And, as we previously discussed, this is a meaningless statement that has no basis in reality because statements are not mathematical sets. And, even if they were, this is a claim for which the statement "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" applies. I'm looking forward to your proof that the measure of criticisms in the set of statements is greater than the measure of the set of praise.

> most critical comments on a HN thread are not worth reading

This is also a "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" case. And, here, it turns out that it's fairly easy to gather evidence against it - for instance, the first five critical comments on that Nim thread (44938094, 44939336, 44939757, 44939770, and 44941418) are all worth reading and not zero-value. I'm looking forward to you finding every single critical comment in that thread and labeling them as worth reading or not to support your very bold claim.

And, of course, that undermines your entire argument at the end - not that the other inferences were valid anyway:

> It's justified to dismiss them in bulk, because the space of possible critical/engaging comments means the work to respond to every bad take is far too much

Nobody said you had to respond to those critical comments individually - there are flag and downvote buttons, you know. And even if there weren't - emotionally undermining someone's logical point is evil, so this still is not justified, unless there are zero valid criticisms made in the entire thread (and you somehow have the clairvoyance to know that none will be posted after you make your comment). The ends do not justify the means.

Your entire response was full of logical fallacies, dishonest manipulation and reframing, failure to read and/or understand my points, and repeated lying and trying to claim I said or meant something that I never did (four times now).

I don't think it's possible to argue logically with you, so this is now no longer about changing your mind, and more about countering your invalid claims so that other HN readers won't be deceived.

And, given the voting on our respective comments, I think that I've done a pretty good job so far.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/manipula...

[throw10920]

Of course - emotionally undermining valid criticism isn't just evil, it's also clearly against the HN guidelines and the purpose of HN, so even beyond it being wrong and manipulative, it just does not belong here.

> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

All of these apply to both value-less critical comments (which I'm not defending), and to undermining valuable critical comments - therefore, "wow why is everyone so negative" posts are literally directly against the guidelines and have no place here.