Hacker News Reader

Comment by Natales | Hacker News Reader

No means a lot more than “no” most of the time.

My mom was Jehovah’s Witness, so I was raised always to take care of “the appearances”, always being polite, even when you disagree.

When I moved to the US back in 2000, I “discovered” people have freedom to think and say whatever they want (kind of) and it was OK to dissent.

The pendulum went the other way, and I became a big fan of Bill Maher and the “it’s OK to be politically incorrect” openly atheist crowd. But being in tech, and the corporate world, it’s not that easy…

The biggest irony of all, is that now I live in what people consider to be “the country of freedom”, and yet, I’ve resorted back to my old ways, always using the “proper way to talk”, not to offend anyone, and always play the kind game. If you want to get anywhere in corporate America, you don’t have a choice anymore. You have to pretend, even if you agree 90%, you’re not pure enough.

In reality, I love dissent, and hearing different ideas, and arguing, convince and being convinced, and not having to care about “banned” words or sensitivities. Lay it all on the table and come back to the drawing board. Where can any of us still get that?

Many times, no is a polite way to say f-you.

View on HN

> what people consider to be “the country of freedom”

Yeah, no. It's a country where it is the norm to be fired on the spot and without recourse for something that has nothing to do with your job. Where cops can size any amount of money you have in your car for no reason. It's the motherland of profits and ads over privacy! US tries to sell itself as “the country of freedom” but I believe the world has come well aware this is BS and you may be much more free in the EU.

> it is the norm to be fired on the spot and without recourse for something that has nothing to do with your job

You're going to have to prove that it's the norm because it's never happened to me, or anyone I have ever interacted with. In a country of 350 million people you can pull out half a dozen examples of anything. But please point me to a single peer-reviewed study that shows it's normal or expected to be fired in the manner you describe. You can't.

I don't think the parent means it is the norm for this to happen to most people, but rather that at-will employment[0] is the norm and this is a possibility, however remote, that most people have to reckon with.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

There is quite a bit of difference between "it is the norm to be fired on the spot and without recourse for something that has nothing to do with your job" (a direct quote, I don't believe missing any context but open to counterarguments) and "a legal framework exists in which a thing could conceivably happen, even though it doesn't happen in any statistically significant numbers"

Fair enough; the comment is a bit hyperbolic. The larger point that this lack of protection in some sense reduces freedom still stands.

Even if it does not happen in significant numbers, such possibility and few widely-reported cases cause chilling effect.

I’m a fairly blunt, “pithy” chap. This has not always won me friends, but this bluntness comes with a couple of important caveats:

1) I always treat people with respect. This is different from deference. I’ve spent a significant part of my life dealing with people that are sometimes emotionally challenged, coupled with a propensity for dealing with problems violently. Many of these folks react very badly to “snootiness.” They’d rather hear “screw you,” than some of the passive-aggressive put-downs you learn at Ivy-League colleges.

2) I’ve learned to never lie in business. Even in the interest of security, I’ve found that it’s possible to avoid lying, by saying things like “I am not authorized to talk about that,” or “That’s not my story to tell” (i.e. “no”).

I take personal responsibility for my screwups, or my team’s, if I am the manager, and give, sincere, contrite (but not servile), apologies, keeping them focused on just the things for which I am responsible. I don’t allow others to “add on” to my apologies. Which I can sometimes do fairly directly.

I never shirk responsibility, and I always make it clear that I am accountable, in direct, unambiguous language.

This earned me a reputation of extreme trustworthiness. If I said I did something, then I did it. If I said I didn’t do something, then I didn’t do it.

If I said “no,” it was accepted without a fight, and I didn’t need to be a jerk about it. People respected me, and they knew I respected them. They also knew they couldn’t push me around, so they didn’t try.

In some cases, I wasn’t empowered to say no (like to a boss). In those cases, I often just had to bite my tongue, and do what I was ordered. If at all possible (not always an option), I would try to provide feedback on why I considered the order less-than-optimal, but I would do it, anyway.

> less-than-optimal, but I would do it, anyway.

How did those things turn out?

(Been in similar situations at my previous job)

Both good and bad. In some cases, the boss was right, and I was wrong (always a good idea to tell the boss they were right). In other cases, I was right, and the boss was wrong (seldom a good idea to tell the boss they were wrong).

Human relationships, as another commenter pointed out, are the real meat in life, and tend to present the biggest challenges. My self-discipline and self-awareness have almost nothing to do with my career, but are the result of a lifetime of personal self-development. Long, boring story.

Comes up all the time between me and my boss with whom I share a mutual respect and, similar to parent, sometimes he was right and sometimes I was right. At the end of the day, it didn't really matter because as a manager the outcomes were his responsibility, therefore he gets the final say.

Exactly. Its not your job to make all the decisions. Its your job to make sure all the decisions are informed decisions.

I was raised in a Mormon family, which I now understand to be a very similar experience to that of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I went on (what was supposed to be) a two year mission for the LDS church, but grew up telling myself it was out of desire and not obligation. It was definitely about obligation, just like so many other aspects of my life at that time.

I told myself I was going to college to better myself, but that was out of obligation, too.

Similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism has created a culture that is explicitly against dissent. Leaders preach from the pulpit often that we should dismiss people whose conclusions are contrary to The Church's narrative or truth claims.

Having recently left my belief in Mormonism, I've been taking a lot of time to reevaluate my goals and life decisions. Years of compromising with conservative Mormonism have left me with a strong appetite for open dissent and honest argument.

Many times, politeness itself is censorship.

Similar background, and I completely agree. I left the faith ~8 years ago and went through an identity crisis. I didn't know what I wanted because I always said 'yes'. All of the decisions in my life to that point were mine, sure, but they were essentially made for me...and I was simply to say 'yes'.

Society itself is a culture against dissent. We choose to live together despite our differences and make sacrifices for the group over the individual. It's part of the social contract.

> In reality, I love dissent, and hearing different ideas, and arguing, convince and being convinced

Sounds great.

> and not having to care about “banned” words or sensitivities

Whoa, where did this come from? How is this related to the previous statement at all?

If you're the type of person who doesn't care about how your words can make others feel, then yeah I'm sure you're stuck with a feeling that you can't argue openly. Have you considered that by changing your tone so that it doesn't come across as personal attacks you would be able to have more open arguments?

Maybe you've worked in companies where they actually have gone overboard, but in my experience most who complain about sensitivities are the type that want to call their colleagues' ideas "retarded" and such.

And it shouldn't. If no is saying fuck you, then that's a far greater problem than being too nice. As if no is politically incorrect. This would have been a far better story actually than the NPR people pleaser pleaser feel good piece.

In Japan there is honne and tatemae. So the corporate (and formal casual) bullshit is formalized. There's a script everyone follows to keep the peace. Then they all go out for a drink, and the cufflinks come off. The best scenario being, you get to say fuck you with the pretense of alcohol even if you're not drunk. And the wives know everything.

So ironically, many Japanese admire the US where there is less of this bullshit. Except, that's only the appearance. Freedom is the tatemae.

So the Japanese system actually works. In a system where you cannot avoid bullshit, scripted bullshit works wonders.

So you need to question the system and those that support it. As it turns out, those that succeed with the system support it, and they're the wealthy.

Fortunately, it is possible (even if our politicians can't do it) to completely disagree with someone and NOT be an asshole.

You can argue AND still be respectful and polite to the person you are arguing with. You can vehemently disagree and still do so in a way that respects the other person's different perspective and point of view.

And choosing not to use language that is commonly considered offensive is not a limit on your freedom. But others have the freedom to choose not to engage with you (or continue to employ you).

> Many times, no is a polite way to say f-you.

I feel you here, there is too much sugar coating of everything, it's spread to the UK too. We are pleased to serve you at another checkout. We will be pleased to help you on another occasion. The weird thing is some people genuinely seem not to realize that the content of these messages is simply 'no' and actually respond differently to them. Conversely I get more wound up when people try to dress up no as yes.

As to a literal f-you however, there are of course ways to say no without resorting to verbal abuse :)

You're missing the fact the information content of the quotes you give is fundamentally different from messages that say "not here" or "not now" in that they immediately suggests an alternative course of action. This is helpful instead of contrarian.

> The pendulum went the other way ... I’ve resorted back to my old ways,

Sounds like you need to find somewhere in the middle. You're allowed to disagree and debate. The polite smiling attitude and F-You attitude both are conflict avoidance.

I come from a very conservative family, at least among my father's family there have been also religious fanatics. That was hardly part of my life luckily, on the other hand open dissent (from younger ones) was hardly ever accepted. It was either met with ridicule, anger or shock. Actually both my mother and my sister also have been influenced a lot with their job choice. For me it has been quite a struggle to choose the studies and job I want to do involving stopping contact with my father almost completely without being faced constant criticism, persuasion and ridicule. Also showing showing happiness is expected.

For me it's completely counter-intuitive what is acceptable and what not in terms of disagreement or even which opinions are okay to voice. I had to "manually" learn this.

>Many times, no is a polite way to say f-you.

Sometimes, not many times. If you interpret the majority of No's as f-u's then that's on you.

Same. My problem isn't finding the will or the ability to say no, it's figuring out when it's acceptable to say no. I've said no too many times and had absolutely each and every person (including people whose opinions I valued) who's analyzed the interaction come back with, "wow, you were being a real jerk saying no in that instance." I've come very close to losing jobs for saying no to the wrong person at the wrong time - if I didn't have an in-demand skillset that was hard to replace, I would almost definitely have found myself unemployed sporadically over the years. I've finally come around to accept that I'm far enough into the autism spectrum not to be able to figure out when I'm in the right, so I usually say yes because it's the least dangerous option.

When English/American say that Europeans are rude it's because we say No and we are clearer about our emotions and intentions, no so much bs.

"Progressivism is domestic imperialism. It is about the conquest of one culture by another, and needs demonstrations of submission to know when the job is done." ~ Michael Malice

I'm sorry this is being done to you.

What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them?

One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "radical free speech" crowd is that your words can hurt people's feeling. And your tone can hurt people's feelings. And there's no good reason to tell someone "fuck off" when you can politely say no other than maybe you have things you're angry about that you haven't dealt with well. And those things you're angry about are lingering around your subsconscious giving you a latent urge to tell someone to "fuck off." But other people shouldn't suffer because you haven't figured out how to deal with your anger issue.

What makes it difficult is the fact that people respond like this. What did he say that you even disagreed with? He has an "anger issue"? wtf.

So just to be clear, it makes it hard for him to be polite because if he complains about doing a minimal amount of work to not be rude, I say something?

It’s really ironic that the very argument you’re trying to provoke is what makes discussing with people like you hard.

The point is that he didn't even say anything and you jumped down his throat. Imagine if he had.

He did say something, he said that it bothers him to have to shape the way he speaks to other people so that they are not offended. And what exactly is weird about that? Sounds like life to me. And that he misunderstands free speech which is about the government not being able to imprison you or legally punish you for speech.

Free speech is a philosophical concept, it happens to be enshrined in law in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent the government for imprisoning you for your speech, but it is first and foremost the philosophical concept, not the law. That concept used to be part of the social mores of the United States and much of the Western world, it isn't really any longer as your own commentary here demonstrates.

The social mores have shifted, and while you may not be imprisoned, real tangible consequences (which are arguably unfair and inappropriate) can occur for trying to have a real meaningful conversation with someone based on your own honest beliefs. You are arguing essentially that those consequences are not only acceptable, but laudable, because you see it as "just desserts". Trying to distract from the serious philosophical issue by hyperfocusing on the legal non-issue is a common tactic of people who endorse bullying and "cancel culture" tactics to suppress other's speech. Your arguments here have been subtly insulting and not in good faith, and I don't think are the way people should behave on HN, but ironically, I'm responding to you in good faith because I fully support (philosophically) your right to say those things and you are acting within the rules.

You clearly have a narrow view of the history of the United States because before the 1960's a black person could be murdered by a mob for saying the wrong thing to a white person. And those mob murderers would not be prosecuted. You call that a philosophical protection of free speech inshrined within the culture?

Also, you ever hear of anyone in America being punished for saying they're a communist or homosexual? Or is that fiction to you as well?

To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. And now it is that same group who coincidentally seems to complain the loudest that they no longer can say exactly what they wish without consequences.

> To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men.

This is true, and unsurprising given the historical context. In fact, the Constitution was written as such with the original intention of providing those freedoms primarily to the benefit of not just white men, but land-owning white men. Crofters, smallholders, and other types of land-owners wanted to be put on the same tier of political power as others, when previously they were stifled under the aristocracy. That was the defining feature of the American Revolution and the things which followed.

But your reply to me is primarily just a form of whataboutism and fails to refute or respond to my core point. My view of history is neither narrow nor incomplete, insofar as it applies to the racial and gender injustices that existed in the US. This also has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophical basis of free speech.

It’s not whataboutism because the fact that the value of free speech was only granted to a privileged few addresses your argument that the USA once valued free speech and things have changed. If free speech was only granted to a privileged few why should we ever think of it as some societal value that was lost? It appears to me that the privileged few that saw themselves in the demographic gifted free speech are the the people who are angry their speech is criticized. We all still have free speech by the definition of the constitution but now there are decentralized public means to criticize the powerful. And there is popular sentiment supporting that criticism.

> It appears to me that the privileged few that saw themselves in the demographic gifted free speech are the the people who are angry their speech is criticized.

Free speech is a civil right, as civil rights have grown in the US it has been extended to those that civil rights have grown to encompass. It's not just the privileged few (or even the privileged majority) that are angry about a loss of this social more.

> but now there are decentralized public means to criticize the powerful.

What you are calling "the powerful" seems to me to mostly be average normal people who just happen to not agree with the current sentiment in vogue. Most of the people who've found themselves on the wrong end of the consequences meted out for attempting to exercise freedom of speech would hardly qualify as "powerful" under any lay definition.

The public square is supposed to belong to everyone, and freedom of speech is the social more that ensures this is the case. We've lost or are beginning to lose this social more, and doing so has disastrous long-term and far-reaching consequences for our society.

Who are these people that have been punished for speech? It seems to me more a boogeyman of “if I say X, people will not like it” which is normal, sometimes people find some ideas repugnant, than a real scare.

And yes I am using a relatively broad definition of powerful, I’m not talking Bezos etc in the 0.01%, I’m talking more upper middle class and up mostly white men. Who maybe are not correctly defined as the powerful but they are traditionally the people protected by law & USA cultural norms (which isn’t power in the traditional sense of political power or wealth but means quite a bit in one’s day-to-day life).

And one more time to say the original counter argument of mine again, if there was free speech explain to me COINTELPRO.

Exactly. The true issue is what's making you think fuck you in the first place! Not how you say it. And that's the real conversation.

If fuck you is what you mean, then no amount of dressing will change the fact that you're saying it. And to then act as if you didn't say it just because you didn't use the words fuck you is lying. Being polite is being polite, but that doesn't change the message THAT much unless you actually lie and say something different. And then often the conversation becomes about attitude and respect and language, and not what was actually angering. Ultimately, that's what's stupid and disrespectful. And to then be scanning and policing each other's statements for this?

This annoys me to no end on Quora too when people just find novel ways of saying fuck you believing that's what their Be Nice Be Respectful policy means. No, it's not a license to say anything you want so long as you're polite. It's like how a racist thinks to get away with racism. If you're a racist then let's talk about it! Of course, normally they can't, so they've trained themselves to talk different. But it's not a real conversation. It's horseshit.

Challenging someone's argument and challenging someone's character are completely different. It doesn't matter how politely you do it if that's what you're doing.

And being honest takes courage! It was never truly about other people's feelings. It's "what if I" hurt them. You're about to do that anyway based on the point you're making, if it's a valid point against something they have a stake in. From there, either they're adults who recognize valid points or they're not. That's their court.

And if they weren't hurt, then you didn't say it, period. What you meant to say got lost in all the correctness.

If I said “little childish voice in the back of your head who craves to be rude without cause” instead of “anger issue” would that make you feel better?

The

>"radical free speech" crowd

understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone else's feelings.

There have never been laws against hurting people's feelings. And no one is advocating for laws against hurting people's feelings. We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. And that you can get fired for being an asshole. And that the law is merely that the government will not imprison you for being an asshole.

The obvious example is misgendering and the whole Jordan Peterson debacle comes to mind.

>We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair.

Trust me abrasive people understand this, some of them get off on it.

>And that you can get fired for being an asshole.

I agree if you're an asshole it is grounds for firing. I've worked with some real abusive dickheads before who should have been fired. The difficulty is in judging what is crossing the line. I've worked at places where people should have been fired (constant abusive sex jokes) and weren't because they held too much power. I've also worked at places where you could get fired for publicly having conservative opinions and where you were constantly walking on eggshells. It's a real tyrany in both cases but I don't see an obvious solution.

Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.

That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)

Is he a lawyer? I'd be curious to know if this is a valid legal opinion or fear-mongering.

Haha of course he isn't. Trained as a clinical psychologist.

His interpretation of the law is entirely nonsense, and he was told as much by actual lawyers many times.

Oh so it's even more silly and blown up than I thought. I'd go back to correct myself but unfortunately I can't since the post is too old. Thanks for correcting me!

Do remember though that Peterson's submissions against the bill (alongside Gad Saad if I remember right) was not really all that silly and blown up. It was the subsequent reaction where people said "this guy is a far right transphbic bigot" and blew it all out of proportion and made him famous. And then there was the whole Lindsay Shepherd/Wilkred Laurier affair.

What I am saying is you might think JP lit a stupid fire, but don't forget that a lot of people came along and poured a lot of oil it.

I find it a bit odd that people are mad at a guy for having concerns about a proposed law and raising them as part of the bill's scrutiny process. And don't forget that in the end, the lawmakers weren't persuaded by his arguments, and passed the law anyway.

Would people rather live in a world where laws are passed without scrutiny, everybody keeops quiet and nobody makes a fuss? I still think somewhere underneath all the nonsense a lot of valuable public discussions were had.

I dont think it is entirely true. I have many times seen people argue that something like offence does not exist. Or that "hurt feelings" are basically your own fault. Or that put downs or insults are all just about your own weak feelings.

Including on HN.

Yes there is some overlap in the groups but they are not the same group.

Well, it is true that you are responsible for the way that you feel, and you can choose not only how to externally react to what people to say, but even teach yourself to internally process those messages as constructively as you want to.

The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them.

I hope I've successfully fallen between the cracks of the perspective you outlined.

> The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them.

Human beings are neurologically wired to biologically respond to communication from other beings. A classic example is nursing women who express milk when hearing a baby cry.

There are many other examples of involuntary responses to environmental stimulus, much of which include human communication. Loud noises cause involuntarily muscular response, sexual display increases heart rates, threatening behavior (including language) floods the bloodstream with cortisol.

In other words, we may (if we're lucky) modulate our actions in response to what people say to us but there is much evidence to suggest we have little to no control over the feelings that words may elicit.

I have much now control over my thoughts and feelings in response to words than I used to. Here, for example, almost ridiculously, I felt a moment of anger that someone who so clearly had missed my point would so confidently respond with examples that are not relevant to it. That lasted a microsecond. I've learned to tell myself a different story. You're not being properly obtuse, your actually have a different set of life experiences and intuitions than I do, and that leads you to interpret my words in a way that I didn't intend. There's nothing to be angry about there.

If you call me a racial slur, and I honestly don't give a shit, what power do you have over me?

> You're not being properly obtuse, your actually have a different set of life experiences and intuitions than I do, and that leads you to interpret my words in a way that I didn't intend.

Intentionally obtuse people exists. Intentionally obtuse responses exist and are not rare. Treating them as good faith does not work and just gives them more power. You change situation into innocent one and that is different topic.

> If you call me a racial slur, and I honestly don't give a shit, what power do you have over me?

If I call you racial slur, I have reason for that. It is likely that I want to let you know that your kind including you is not welcome in this team, company, street, whatever. It is first warning and if you stay, expect to deal with my hostility (direct or passive aggressive or purely behind back). It also means I am more likely to be creating narratives in my head to use against you behind your back.

So, if you call me racial slur, what power you have? Is this the first sign I would watch out for hostility and to watch my back from you? Is this sign you will be biased while evaluating my work? Biased evaluation is super hard to prove or recognize before it does damage, pretty often it just lowers targets confidence in first stages.

Are you being intentionally hostile and if I stay near you, you will escalate? Racial slur is hostility and if I don't notice first hostile signs, I am more at risk.

Are you a colleague I need to cooperate with, now knowing you take me as lesser? Will I be blamed if that cooperation fails? Or someone whose explanations and answers I need? Are you a manager? Or, are we in a bar and this means I better leave? Are you a cop and this is first warning that my rights are at risk?

All of those are threats of violence, not the violence itself. In most if not all cases, you are right. I'm making a theoretical argument to disprove a thesis, that words themselves have power to hurt outside of the power we give them. If you say something to me, and I don't fear you, then your words have no power over me.

I realize there are intentionally obtuse people out there, but I don't think you were being one of them. And I believe that the pathway to a better society is presuming positive intent until demonstrated otherwise. And even perhaps one step beyond. What looks like undeniable hatred to you may actually be benighted misunderstanding and ignorance that deserves to be corrected, lovingly and gradually if needed, over the course of a lifetime.

> Here, for example, almost ridiculously, I felt a moment of anger that someone who so clearly had missed my point would so confidently respond with examples that are not relevant to it.

I believe my examples, especially regarding blood cortisol levels with regard to threatening behavior, are very relevant.

Another example

> I felt a moment of anger

You controlled your response, but you likely had little to no control over that initial “moment of anger”, which is my point.

Yeah we all choose what we want to focus on, and I try to focus on things I can control. And I believe if everyone did, the world would be a better place.

The said words affect everyone in the room. When someone is offending you and you don't respond, it pretty often affects how other respond to you too.

> even teach yourself to internally process those messages as constructively

No, you need to teach yourself to respond to them. And for that you need to stop pretending they do no harm. And stop blaming yourself for feeling bad after someone insulted you. Really, when someone insults you, feeling hurt is normal human reaction. Not "your responsibility to constructively respond" or to teach yourself to stop feeling.

That is just being doormat and doormats gets bullied. That is how women in 1950 were taught to act while males responded to insults. Males were the ones who had respect.

I'm not saying bullying doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't be responded to appropriately. But I think people miss that there is a TON of speech that is not malicious on nature but gets treated as such. That's not bullying, and if you respond to it with defiance, you're escalating situations, not building trust with people different from you.

Why is angry response to my defiance considered warranted while my defiance as response to perceived hostility is not? My defiance is not malicious either.

It's not. But an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. You can continue to participate in that cycle, and most do.

I'm simply pointing out that there's another option, which is to get off that train. And it's actually quite simple to do.

There's a little voice in our heads that says we can't let the other person win. If you want to, you can ask it questions. Like, win at what? What's the prize? What is it worth? And not always, but sometimes, the answer is there nothing at stake and you should pick your battles.

> One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "radical free speech" crowd is that your words can hurt people's feeling. And your tone can hurt people's feelings.

Stating objective, empirical observations about the world can also hurt people's feelings.

I think there's a middle point there.

For context, I'm from Spain (our society is somewhat confrontational, in the sense that people like to argue about petty things and banter, it's almost a way of making small talk here) and I've got a lot of American friends here, who in contrast tend to take the "politically correct/business nice" approach in their circles, even with friends.

There are ups and downs to each approach, and I don't think one is superior to the other, but in my personal experience my american friends tend to be a little insecure about their relationships and not bond as much, because they can never be fully sure of whether they're welcome or just tolerated - if everything's a smile, it's harder to tell a genuine gesture from an act of politeness.

I have a pet theory that introverted/asocial people tend to like the blunt approach and the politically incorrect crowd better because it's easier to tell where you stand, which might be great if you're not good at reading people and navigating social customs. Extroverted, more social people have a more developed sense to understand those subtleties and never feel as lost/insecure, so they don't see the upside of bluntness.

> What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them?

The problem is that people intentionally manipulate what "being kind" means to try to silence others. The tactic, as far as I understand it, is to present an incredible level of sensitivity about anything that happens to disagree with their worldview such that even voicing a different opinion is treated as "disrespectful" and "unkind". It's an intentionally manipulative play that exploits people's desire to get along, with the outcome of only the most sensitive person's opinions being allowed to be voiced, everything else being characterized as unacceptable, and dissenters being ostracized.

It's weaponizing social etiquette as a means to enforce political compliance, all the while crying crocodile tears and claiming that they just want people to be "kind".

This comment and your other comments downthread are crossing into personal attack. Please don't do that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Can you explain to me the personal attack because I’m not seeing it. And I’ve been a commenting member of this community for about a decade so I believe I have something of an understanding of HN.

Your comment took the form of making judgments about someone's personal issues ("you haven't figured out how to deal with your anger issue") and psychologically commenting about them. That's much, much too personally provocative. The odds of it landing well with a person you're talking to on the internet round to zero. It's also incongruent with a defense of "being kind and speaking to people with respect".

To be fair, it's not clear whether you meant the word "you" to be Natales or anyone-in-general. But that nuance is probably going to get lost on people reading the comment, especially the particular person you're talking to. Also, your other comments downthread made it clearer that you were indeed talking about Natales personally, and also that you were inclined to attack other users (e.g. "would that make you feel better", "You clearly have a narrow view").

I know you've been a member of HN for a long time. You're a great HN user!

I definitely was speaking about “the group of people who believe free speech is under attack” and “the group of people who feel like they shouldn’t have to be polite to others” but I understand how that can be misinterpreted.

And thanks for the compliment :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com