Interesting that this is currently #1 on HN, but (as of right now) 100% of the comments are dismissive & derogatory.
How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?
How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?
Negative comments that don't add value are not viewed the same way for some reason.
All you need to do is find some flaw or imperfection, comment on it, and so long as you're not wrong... you'll at least be counted amongst those making valid observations; even if what you're pointing out isn't fatal to the proposition or fails to win the big picture case.
Making a positive assertion however is much more difficult. You have to not only find a valid observation but then be convincing that the supporting observation makes a compelling case in favor of the proposition; perhaps with supporting evidence, etc.
So a flaw can stand on its own and be factually true, but a supporting argument must be part of a larger framework of support to have meaning. And I'm not so sure this is wrong by itself. Positive statements and assertions should have solid foundations to win the day.
Where I think we go wrong is we allow the negative arguments win the day for an opposing position. We let the ease of someone making a negative argument confuse us into thinking that person's opposing proposition is right and is so doing we fall into the trap of false alternatives. Current public discourse, speaking in the US, has taken this problem to the extreme. Activists come out against one thing or another, often times with legitimate complaints and gain public support in their opposition... but then get away with translating that shared opposition into support for a different idea without having ever had to make the positive argument in favor of it.
A critic can be correct in making a criticism... but that doesn't make them right.
Though it's not uncommon to see posts of the "I agree, and here's an anecdote as to why" variety getting heavily upvoted, but those are harder to write, and so less frequent.
I just mentioned that I have a personal aspect (not actually an advantage, at times), that sort of gives me the same thing.
I realize that people that are heavily invested in orthodoxies can sometimes consider all "non-positive" feedback to be "derogatory," but that's on them.
There's a lot of really good, decent, intelligent, skilled people in this world, and the vast majority of them manage to be that way without any mentoring from me. I applaud and support them; but I also won't insist that they meet my personal bars, and will push back, if they insist that I meet theirs (not all the time -sometimes, they have every right to expect me to meet their bar. This is not one of those times).
People who care enough to comment on the title (ha) or add comments are an overlapping group.
For one, posts are often upvoted based on their title/subject, and only afterwards are read and evaluated for their content.
1. See hn link.
2. Go directly to comments.
3. Top comment is seen as counter argument to the article.
4. Discuss on premise defined by top comment (not article).
Unless there’s a way to safe for sure (ex HN weighs in with analytic data) it’s all speculation.