[gjsman-1000]

In my opinion; the technical critique is often thin, an edge case at most, or something overly pedantic; solely to make a negative claim.

“The sky is blue.”

“Technically speaking, no; it’s just a reflection, and at night it’s basically black, so you’re wrong even the majority of the time!”

As such I still completely back that article years ago calling this place lovably toxic. It’s gotten worse since then.

[IggleSniggle]

I simply choose to believe that people do this out of a place of genuine curiosity / excitement to share knowledge. I believe this approach of assuming the best of intentions is even in the HN guidelines! Or maybe it was just the old Reddit ones from long long ago when Reddit was more like what HN is now. Either way, maintaining the background assumption, even when it is challenging to do so, makes HN a far more pleasant place to inhabit.

[mrweasel]

I do run into the overly pedantic stuff pretty frequently, people will often latch on to some minor point or detail, maybe because it's easier to comment on?

Deep technical critique often can't be in the comments, in my opinion. Unless you're an expert, setting up the environment, doing the experiments and presenting the data is an entire article on it's own. It would probably be healthier if people did that, rather than typing out a quick comment.

Then there are topics like how AI will influence society in general, that's a multi-year sociology study, before being able to say anything with just a hint of accuracy. Warnings based on sentiment and anecdotes will always register as negative.

There are some articles that have 200+ comments, in those cases whatever you have to say has probably already been posted, but people like to vent their frustrations, sometimes it helps to type out your thoughts, even if no one will read them.

[7777777phil]

The classifiers I used are definitely conflating technical criticism with genuine negativity, and that's a real limitation. When I say "technical critique reads differently than personal attacks," I probably should have been clearer that the models aren't making that distinction well.

[acessoproibido]

Compared to how bad online discourse has gotten pretty much anywhere else in the meantime, it's still really good here. Only place I can stomach for extended periods

[stuartjohnson12]

This is SUCH a good example of pedantry and will become my new primary example. All too often, people think of pedantry as being along the magnitude of scale. The "rational" pedant's response to this is to use quantitative jargon and bayes to scale up the size of the nitpick.

[cheschire]

So you're arguing that technically the technical critique is not valuable by yourself arguing on technicalities of the technical critique. Oh the irony! But you're not wrong. ;)

[tux3]

Technically speaking, it's not a reflection, it's Rayleigh scattering. So you're wrong, even the majority of the time! :)

[gjsman-1000]

Exactly; but rarely is this done for curiosity or accuracy; but instead for veiling toxicity.

This place drowns in veiled toxicity.

“Grass is green”

“But I live in California and we have a drought, and the entire concept of green grass is a waste of valuable water resources, and was frankly always a sign of privilege because only someone with excess freshwater can do it, and we need that freshwater for starving kids in Africa, and if Boomers hadn’t been so obsessed with single family housing and urban sprawl…”

[acessoproibido]

>drowns in veiled toxicity

I don't really disagree but given the massive tsunami of outright _vileness_ that has engulfed all other online soaces it's holding up remarkably well

[giraffe_lady]

This remains the best general description imo:

> The site’s now characteristic tone of performative erudition—hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—often masks a deeper recklessness. Ill-advised citations proliferate; thought experiments abound; humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational. Logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify broad moral positions. The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns.

From the new yorker's profile of dang a few years ago. It doesn't specifically address the negativity but it contains it, if you get what I mean.

Also I mean you know you, personally, are one of the worst about this right? I only recognize a handful of usernames here and yours is one for exactly this reason.

[TimorousBestie]

It really bums me out that you’re apparently still rate-limited, I always appreciate a giraffe-lady thread.

[gjsman-1000]

I recognize your name very well for the exact same reason, touché.

[giraffe_lady]

Do you consider yourself an ideologue, an honest propagandist? I do for myself, I don't profess any particular devotion to these ideals of rhetoric or debate. I just consider them tools to accomplish goals, that may be laid aside at will or need. I think frankly most people here also do they just don't admit it.