Re:Mining robot stranded on Pacific Ocean floor in deep-sea ...
by baryphonic on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:22PM
(#26984578)
I'm very sorry that this happened, and was not at all my intention. I had no idea that the post would be received the way that it was. Usually, if I make a post that has an extreme reaction like this one, I delete it shortly thereafter, but failed to do so here.
While I can understand how my comment could be interpreted as snark or possibly flamebait (despite neither being my intention), I'm not sure I understand the "generic tangents" or straw-manning claims. Can you help me understand which parts of my post cross these boundaries so I can avoid them in the future?
Re:Mining robot stranded on Pacific Ocean floor in deep-sea ...
by dang on Friday April 30, 2021 @01:12PM
(#26996259)
I took it as a generic tangent because it went into a generic critique of environmentalists, and as a straw man because no one would plausibly argue "can never allow anything new".
The 'generic tangent' point doesn't exactly explain itself, but it's so important. This recent comment explains it more, with links to lots of previous explanation, if anyone is interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26894739
At a minimum, you broke these:
"Don't be snarky."
"Eschew flamebait."
"Avoid generic tangents."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Generic ideological tangents are particularly destructive here.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...