Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Try just writing paragraphs? We can all read the comment you're replying to; we don't need to read it twice.
I've seen such used before (though with italics to help the eye find the breaks), when a comment makes too many points or is too complex to reply to without making it clear which part of the comment is relevant to which part of a reply.
Is there a better way to format conversations on HN when comments reach this level of branching complexity?
A long back-and-forth of quote and rebuttal though is definitely not the style here. That style makes sense in Email and Usenet, because you're often using readers that don't show the parent comment at the same time or in a thread. It makes very little sense here, where we're essentially reading the same comment twice.
For standard/default conversations, I agree that it doesn't make sense (as is the case with many standard situations). But for non-standard situations, sometimes non-standard approaches are more suited.
Anyway, there is nothing in the site guidelines defining "the style here," as you call it. Are you the sole repository of the style here, or are there others?
Counterpoint (with the quote for irony): I find that in politicized discussions like this one, when I want to jump in to correct something, it is horrifyingly common to find that the original comment has been editted to sneak around the point I wrote. The quotes act as protection against bad faith discussion.
a) You do not know what I know
b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas
> and also kind of outside the norms of our community
This is my very complaint. It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is strict epistemology (disciplined adherence to that which is actually true) a formal violation of explicit community rules, or an undocumented, culturally imposed one?
> when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal.
Adherence to formal, broadly accepted definitions of words (upon which someone else's argument is based) is improper behavior?
> The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate.
How does one know what portions of reality are acceptable to discuss, and which ones shall not be discussed? I see nothing in the guidelines. And I would strongly disagree to objections based on "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 a fine guideline, but when it starts being used as a wildcard to suppress true ideas, the discussion of which may not to be some people's liking, I think that crosses an important line.
> Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site.
Certain forms of communication (precise, non-narrative) lend themselves to different writing styles.
Do you have any objections that are based on the actual content of the ideas I have written? Or might your objection be not to the ideas themselves, but that I am stating them out loud?
Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
Based on how I see events unfolding in the world, now seems like an opportune time to be discussing just what exactly we humans are actually up to on this planet (as opposed to what we like to tell ourselves we are up to), from a more philosophical/abstract perspective - this facilitates the ability to rise above the repetitive loop of object-level "he said, she said" conversations, and ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making - at least in theory. Are we formally opposed to that level of conversation, is that "outside the norms of our community" - or not? This is not my decision to make, I am only asking the question.
> Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
And I believe this is your end goal:
> the abilty ... to ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making
Is that a fair set of summary quotations?
This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact, be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'"
This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN.
> My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all
This statement is objectively incorrect.
You wrote: "...combined with some [ [conspiracy theories] popular among ["the Tea Party movement"] ] as they were known, [propelled our current president into office].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
- the act of conspiring.
- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. Law.
- an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
.
> nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong
This sounds like you believe that you can assert anything, and the onus is on others to disprove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
> That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion.
I don't think it's actually true that I've misread or mischaracterized your assertion. I have provided some information above upon which my reasoning is based.
More likely, I suspect your objection is that I have interpreted it literally, as opposed to "knowing what you mean" - the issue with the latter approach is, it has a dependency on the manner in which each individual reader unpacks the text you have written into complex ideas in their mind. The advantage of speaking explicitly/precisely/literally is that it is far more immune to errors during transmission. Of course, this can also e a disadvantage, such as when endeavouring to persuade people to believe certain ideas, that are not actually (known to be) True (which is why I suspect my style of writing is so unpopular - it interferes with that process).
> Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really?
No, but it would be preferable if you speak in more precise terms (less vagueness, less rhetoric), or at least acknowledge the form in which you are speaking. But of course, you are free to do whatever you would like.
> You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way
Not quite. I did point out that this labelling is bad, but I also pointed out some specifics of why it is bad. And, I did not suggest that this is "the only thing that is bad" - that is your interpretation of what I've said, an interpretation that is distinctly different than what I actually said. It is this phenomenon (and the increasing frequency of it, on certain important topics) that bothers me.
> but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be....
When you say "they seem to be X linked to..." - what information is your perception of this linkage based on? Did you roll up your sleeve and do the associative backtracing yourself, or did you outsource that to a third party, and accepts the resulting assessment at face value, with no concern for its relative, quantitative accuracy?
> ...linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care.
Some of us care. Firstly, I care about what is actually true. Secondly, I care that so many people exhibit signs of not caring about what is true, while simultaneously accusing other people of doing that very thing - and seem to be completely unaware that this phenomenon is occurring. Based on my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of history, the long term consequences of this sort of mindset is often unpleasant.
> This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way
That you consider truth to be some sort of a game is similarly concerning.
> That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent.
Are you able to point out what is factually wrong with it (and if so, could you please state explicitly what that is)? I am also very curious to know what you think my intent is, as well as how that belief formed in your mind, but that's purely optional.
Lest you allow your intuition that I am "up to something", or "trying to gaslight you" dissuade you from addressing the points that I have actually made (as opposed to addressing inaccurate, non-comprehensive interpretations of them), I would like to preemptively point out that the thinking style I am using here is no different than that which most of us use all day long when we are writing code: disciplined, fact-based (consistent with observable reality) logic. If we write unsound code based on incorrect premises, will our programs not produce incorrect (inconsistent with reality) results, and do we not exert significant effort to ensure that we avoid that? Well then, if that is appropriate for matters in the workplace that affect only small slices of the world population, is there some logical reason that this style of thinking becomes inappropriate when dealing with arguably more important matters: events in the real world, many of which have complex cascading effects on very large slices of the world population?