Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrflowers | Hacker News Reader

> Knowing they come in with such strongly held preconceived notions makes me reflexively question their own introspection before putting pen to paper.

>Ultimately, are you writing to convince me, or yourself, of your point?

I like that you point out here that the author clearly has a strong opinion, and then immediately say that the act of expressing that opinion may suggest that they do not hold that opinion at all.

By this logic, are you trying to convince us that you don’t love the way this article is written, or are you trying to convince yourself of that?

View on HN

Is that what I did, though? I disagree.

Rather, what I hoped to articulate was a sense that being able to viscerally feel that an author holds a very obvious position from the outset of an article, and then not seeing them make even the faintest attempt to proactively argue their point against the most obvious—the easiest—criticisms, comes across lazy.

I expect arguing in good faith, and this wasn’t that.

Good faith argument has at no point in history required supporting an opposite proposition. “Taking a position and arguing it” is literally what an argument is. That is what the endeavor entails.

Anything else is just aesthetics and personal preference

So, to recap, your gripe, with my gripe, is that I hold the author to aesthetic standards that differ from your own—and that that’s… wrong? Do I have that right?

I ask genuinely. I want to understand your position better here.

I think it’s silly to confuse aesthetic preference with the difference between good and bad faith argumentation. Like if you insist that someone painstakingly take the time and effort to convince you that they don’t have an opinion on a topic while trying to convey their opinion about a topic, that’s so absurd that it itself borders on a bad faith request.

Also my original gripe was very clear. “Are you trying to convince yourself?” indicates that the author didn’t believe what they wrote. And your reasoning here for mentioning that is that they wrote it. It is a no-win scenario in which another person literally couldn’t hold an opinion that doesn’t conform to your aesthetic. That is insane!

Agree, that is not required. It is an Essay after all.

That said, I disagree with the idea that it’s merely about aesthetics.(Hegel’s dialectic, for example, isn’t just a stylistic choice — its structure actively shapes meaning and allows for a better synthesis.)

I don't think the author wants to engage and have meaningful conversations, his position is clear.

A meaningful conversation - at least how i see it -, involves acknowledging both the pros and cons of any position. Even if you believe the pros outweigh the cons — which is a subjective judgment — you should still be able to clearly enumerate the cons. That’s is an analytical approach.

This sounds like the "self-assured gotcha" the parent is frowning about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com