It's probably not a good approach to life though. Most bad ideas aren't really worth arguing about, better to focus on the good ideas, or at least the finding common ground with the good intentions behind bad ideas.

I'm as guilty of negativity as anybody, maybe even more than most, but at least we can recognize this as a vice which may feel good in the short term but do us harm in the long run.

>It's probably not a good approach to life though.

It is 100% how adults approach life.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3652533/

>Most bad ideas aren't really worth arguing about,

At the same time you have to stop bad ideas in their tracks otherwise they spread like bacteria on an unclean counter, and the internet typically does a bad job of stopping them unless moderation is heavy handed. This leads to a never ending circle of discussion of bad ideas.

Won't lie, I haven't read that paper, but I doubt it contradicts what I'm saying, which is that it is unhealthy to be stressed, and arguing with randos on the internet about shit that doesn't matter most of the time (and which both of you are almost always powerless to do anything about) is going to have a negative effect on your long term health outcome. Every minute that you spend annoyed about reddit user ballLicker6969 saying something ignorant is a minute of your life you'll never get back.

I disagree. Life is a tightrope of limited duration and small missteps can be disastrous. Take risks, but tilt the odds in your favor by making the optimism as pruned by correct negativity as possible. Do not waste time optimistically on something that has little chance of success, or that has already demonstrably failed. Above all, do not get trapped wishfully believing in things that are wrong.

I generally agree. Offline (ask my family) I'm Pollyanna.

It's hard to let bad ideas go unchallenged though. Places like Reddit? Sure, brigades, bots—it's tilting at windmills to try to add balance there. But HN is a community I still care for. I still respect the comments (and commenters) here.

(No, commentator is not a word—despite what Apple's dictionary is telling me.)

What do you call the people who provide commentary on e.g. live sports? Oddly we don't use that word for people who leave internet comments, but it seems like it would fit pretty well.

(See also: commentariat)

> but at least we can recognize this as a vice which may feel good in the short term but do us harm in the long run.

harm??? so only happy thoughts from now on?

Negative emotions take their toll, too much will age you prematurely. It's not a black and white thing of course, there's a balance to be struck.

I cut people a lot slack that might be dealing with a lot of negative issues in their head. If they want to drop out and spend the next year hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, cut off from the outside world, I'm going to respect their choices.

Bad ideas in politics should be argued about, particularly if they are gaining traction and have backing, because then there's a decent chance they will become policy. People who tune out of politics because of polarization and toxicity are letting the bad ideas win.

Bad ideas in fields of expertise need to be discussed to the extent of keeping the field free of bad ideas as much as possible. Biologists will sometimes point out why intelligent design is not a good scientific theory for example.

Most things are inedible, yet we treat food poisoning as unacceptable event. Places serving expired food get shut down. Yet preparing speech and sights we feed others is a lost art. When I read how people wrote 100 years ago I feel like a brute

I'm very confused by this analogy.

Not the OP, but I'll try to unpack it for you.

Reading online, listing to public discourse, etc. these days is like taking the Tide Pod challenge; people feeding you inedible or even toxic garbage that superficially looks like candy. If we fed others actual food with the same care we employ when producing "food for thought", we'd all be, at best, very, very ill.

When compared with what people wrote in the past (especially through a survivorship bias filter, where the best writing is preserved longer and distributed more widely) what we produce today seems crude and disgusting.

Thank you for putting it this eloquently.

Even stranger, for me, is the current prevalence of collective shunning, the so called cancel-culture, that is triggered by the most diverse reasons, but seemingly never buy the negativity and toxicity of the discourse. It is always lone individuals leaving because of that. But as soon as another reason - political, cultural etc. — is added, there is a collective exodus and condemnation. twitter/x is good example.

That’s a fair point, but I think we can distinguish between critical thinking and negativity.

We can rigorously test an idea or decide it’s not for us while still maintaining a supportive environment.

Often, the most helpful feedback isn't ‘this is bad,’ but rather ‘here is a different perspective to consider.’

I like your attitude.

I think this is a common view, but it assumes that most of one's negative hot takes are good. And frankly, I've seen HNers being confidently wrong more times than I can count.

The critique of negativity assumes the positive takes are good. Why the asymmetry? It feels hypocritical.