[stavros]

Eh, history has shown me that that's incorrect, though. In my culture, we're direct and just say what we want to say, whereas in US culture you have to be very circumspect or you get a bunch of downvotes. I've used an LLM to give me feedback so I can "anglicize" my comments, otherwise I get downvoted to hell.

Even in this comment, I initially wrote the start as "you're wrong", but then had to catch myself and go back and soften it to "that's incorrect", even though the meaning is the exact same. The constant impedance mismatch is tiring.

[NordSteve]

"You're wrong" is a criticism of the speaker, "that's incorrect" is a criticism of the content. Two different things.

[jjkaczor]

When it comes to factual information, and not opinion - telling someone that they are wrong is not a criticism.

It is fact.

Of course - people have egos and emotions, so when they hear someone tell them they are wrong, they will typically take that as criticism about themselves - and not the fact that you are disputing.

[Cthulhu_]

That doesn't refute the comment - "you are wrong" is personal and aimed at the person, "that is not correct" is impersonal and directed at the contents.

This is the complexity of language and communication, but in this case it's pretty clear. "You are wrong" is criticism on and aimed at the person.

[stavros]

Yeah, I don't see it this way. I see it as that "you're always wrong" is criticism and aimed at the person, "you're wrong" (clearly implying "on this") is directed at the contents.

[jjkaczor]

I will agree with you that a short response simply stating that "you are wrong" is aimed at the person - if it isn't supported with the facts, resources and details about why they are wrong.

However - if those details are provided, it is not personal, but just simply factual and shouldn't be considered an insult.

The other complexity is whether or not one is having a debate about something that can be factually quantified, versus something that is just an opinion.

[dredmorbius]

HN, its moderation guidelines, and its moderator practices, are highly sensitive to anything verging on personal attack simply because site behaviour is so sensitive to such writing.

If that means blunting objections as "that's incorrect" rather than "you're wrong", so be it. Two decades' experience, which is a tremendous run in online forum space, is quite difficult to argue with.

(Not that I don't occasionally argue with mods over guidelines, intent, and/or effects, not necessarily on this specific rule.)

[butlike]

That too, depends on circumstance.

If it is rainy near me, and clear skies near you, and I tell you the sky is grey, without corroboration from the weather report, I am wrong to you. If you say the sky is blue, without corroboration, you are wrong to me.

Gravity falls down. On Earth.

The boiling point is 100 degrees. Unless you're using Fahrenheit or Kelvin.

I find that when refuting people, instead of outright debasing their position with a right/wrong dichotomy, it works better to illuminate the possibility there is a larger breadth to the viewpoint. In this way, both views can generally share the same space. Healthily, if one can add such a descriptor.

[phkahler]

>> I find that when refuting people, instead of outright debasing their position with a right/wrong dichotomy, it works better to illuminate the possibility there is a larger breadth to the viewpoint. In this way, both views can generally share the same space. Healthily, if one can add such a descriptor.

This can be exhausting. When arguing product characteristics at work, I'm often tempted to say "that's terrible" or "nobody wants that". In my mind those would be factually correct based on my experience and understanding. But I still have to bite my tongue and remember the specific reasons those are bad ideas and "make a case". It is always received better with supporting information rather than presented as a fact. It helps me if I think of it as persuasion or education which is worth the extra time.

[tripzilch]

It's completely clear what is intended, the only thing you're disagreeing about, is the cultural difference of who is expected to make this translation.

I think that would've been pretty clear from the post too, if you weren't so keen on giving a non-native speaker an English lesson ...

[johnisgood]

Speaking of, I have been using an LLM to help me sound less accusatory when trying to talk about my feelings.

[tripzilch]

Trying to keep things on topic, BTW, I found that LLMs are pretty good at picking up the kinds of context that makes this very obvious what is really being meant.

So you could use an LLM, privately, to soften people's opinions.

I just tried it for you, I won't copy it here cause the thread is about not using LLMs, but if you get too upset from somebody being simply direct and clear in their manner of speaking, the LLM is trained on enough American cultural baggage that it is very capable of softening that blow with the extra words you so dearly need to see past that red mist.

Someone might even be able to vibe code a browser plugin for it.

[jibal]

They are semantically identical: "you're wrong" is shorthand for "what you said is wrong" ... it is definitely not ad hominem.

[stavros]

If the speaker says something incorrect, they can't be right, therefore they're wrong. I don't see the difference.

[Cthulhu_]

It depends on whether what they say is coming from them or if it's something they are citing; "I am extremely attractive" can be countered with "you are wrong", but "People say I am extremely attractive" cannot be, because I did not come up with the opinion, others did.

"They are wrong" is then valid, or "That is not correct" if I have misinterpreted them.

[skywhopper]

I doubt it’s your tone that gets many downvotes, although it’s true if you soften your opinion you’ll get fewer downvotes. But clearly stating a bad opinion is usually the best way to get downvoted.

[stavros]

In my previous comment, for example, I stated my personal experience and it's now sitting at 0.