Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

> I forgot that I'm talking to algorithms that cannot deal with any linguistic ambiguity.

Please read and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fair, though I'd ask you to do the same:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

It is very frustrating that, as long as there's even a tiny bit of ambiguity, dismissive quips (like your response to my initial comment) are very likely to happen. They derail the discussion by deliberately choosing a weak interpretation that has obvious inconsistencies.

With regard to the HN guidelines, my personal perspective is that they're not black and white. There are shades of gray. And not every guideline is equal in importance. I don't cite the guidelines for every conceivable violation. The point in a conversation where I may feel a need to cite the guidelines is when the conversation gets personal. You can criticize my arguments all you want, and it feels like everyone on HN fails to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, but IMO there is no place for personal attacks. So the difference here is that "This is not a thing that exists in the world" has nothing to do with you personally, whereas "I forgot that I'm talking to algorithms that cannot deal with any linguistic ambiguity" was clearly an insult, and indeed deprived me of my humanity. I will not tolerate that.

With regard to "flawless behavior", I think the issue is not just ambiguity but overlooking the long history of abhorrent behavior by the US, which has constantly bombed and invaded other countries and interfered in other inhumane ways such as supplying weapons. Given that, I have to wonder where in history you would find decades of flawless behavior. I would ask seriously where the military attacks against Iran and Venezuela would rank exactly in your list of grievances against the current US administration. It's true that you could be talking about something else, but I think that in itself is problematic, to ignore the worst atrocities and focus instead on other things.

Inside the US, we have roving gangs of Trump-controlled paramilitary thugs shooting and beating people in the streets, and who may threaten polling places next month. Our economy has been sabotaged, our government sold to the highest bidders. The news media is consolidating under control of Trump allies. We're experiencing outbreaks of diseases that had been eradicated. Our scientific research has been defunded, our universities cowering in fear, and our environment has been opened to unmigigated pollution. To be frank, the reputation of the US in the rest of the world is among the least of our problems under Trump. Thus, when I'm talking about the Reichstag fire—i.e., the end of democracy in Germany and on analogy a similar event in the US (already foreshadowed by January 6, 2021)—and you respond talking about a "positive relationship with the US", as if that were the most important problem in the world, I felt that this actually trivialized the conversation.

Sorry, my statement was not meant to be a personal attack, I did not mean to imply that you are not human. When I said "algorithms", I was referring to the strategy by which I perceived your reply to be constructed (and still do, tbh). But I can see that my previous choice of words was unfortunate - sorry that it came off as a personal attack.

But I do still take some issue with your own approach. I would have preferred to criticize your arguments, had you brought any up! Of course it's impossible to always respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of anyone's words, but at least you should have settled on any plausible interpretation. Your reply clearly showed that you chose an implausible interpretation, and I stand by my view that it is a bigger violation of the guidelines than you seem to think.

> When I said "algorithms", I was referring to the strategy by which I perceived your reply to be constructed (and still do, tbh).

I don't understand what this means.

> Your reply clearly showed that you chose an implausible interpretation

How should I interpret your reply? Wouldn't it be better for you to explain rather than to complain and make me guess, perhaps wrongly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com