[rdtsc]

> I would appreciate it

Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations.

Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else.

They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.

[jaggederest]

They were also clearly incorrect.

No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy.

It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully.

This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

[rdtsc]

They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" .

> Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.

[apl]

  > They were incorrect on a side detail (...)

Doesn't cover it at all. OP gives a mechanistic account of how the construct of "porn addiction" works and how it affects people; there isn't much to his post other than that. His mechanistic account happens to be incorrect, or at the very least sufficiently misguided to be worthless, and people call him out on that.

[grandpa]

I think the concern is not that people called him out when he was wrong, but that one person phrased it very rudely.

[Karunamon]

Which is, when it comes right down to it, is a tone argument. Which is only one step above fallacious reasoning.[1] Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS. The person doing the attacking has done so using an explicit refutation of a couple of the author's main points.

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disag...

[neumann_alfred]

Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS.

And nobody claimed that it does. They simply pointed out that it's kinda weak to be an asshole in response; the fact the the asshole had a point doesn't make them not an asshole "Yeah but he's right". That's great, but not the point, and was also mentioned by the very people criticizing the asshole for being one. All further responses to that just went in circles, attacking strawmen like you just did.

[Wintamute]

Couldn't agree more. Well done for stating this. I'm not sure where some of these aggressive comments are coming from, but despite claiming to want to improve the quality of the discussion they achieve precisely the opposite. Compassion/tolerance/understanding and accuracy are not mutually exclusive.

[TeMPOraL]

True, but as many others wrote here, you can correct another person and still be polite about it.

One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing.

I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).

[Sharlin]

This is not a debate on who is right or wrong on the factual matters. Nobody is suggesting that the extremely rude person was factually wrong just because he was extremely rude. As you said, it's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out in a polite way. Nobody disagrees with that, but it's totally beside the point because here the problem was that the calling-out was anything but polite.

[papsosouid]

I find it interesting that you characterize his personal opinion as expecting "everyone on the internet to cater to his expectations", while demanding that he cater to your expectations of "politeness". People posting deliberately misleading pseudo-scientific nonsense do not warrant some false amiability. His nonsense needs a firm rebuttal, just as homeopathy and chakras and crystal therapy and all the other quackery does.

[MartinCron]

The expectation of politeness is a meaningful social norm, not just a personal opinion.

Also, politeness and civility isn't the same as false amiability. You can (and should) give firm rebuttals in a civil way. There's nothing false about it.

[papsosouid]

The expectation of politeness as a meaningful social norm does not apply to con artists.

[MartinCron]

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. We absolutely should be polite and civil to con artists, charlatans, schemers, scammers, phonies, bronies, and quacks. When you coarsen the dialogue, it negatively impacts everyone in the community, not just the con artist.

[illuminate]

There is no dialogue with sociopaths, nothing constructive but to figure out how to waste less time and energy on them in the future.

Every minute spent trying to get anything back is a minute you will never have back.

[papsosouid]

I don't think so. Con artists take advantage of people's unwillingness to confront them and the desire to remain "polite" and "pleasant". They benefit from it. On the other hand, it most certainly does not negatively impact everyone in the community for people to be blunt with con artists. You may feel it negatively impacts you, but it doesn't negatively impact me.

[MartinCron]

I guess I am not being clear. I totally advocate confronting con artists. I even agree that there is a moral imperative to call out con artists. I just think it can and should be done in a civil way.

I don't want to hang out at a place where people are yelling, even if they aren't yelling at me.