This. A thousand times this.
There are always arguments about thick and thin skin, but I can't find any value in being so snide about something.
I look at HN comments because I'm looking for balance and additional information, not to find someone trying to be That Guy, and prove how much more he knows than the initial author.
I value the content HN has in the way of articles posted and comments made, but the amount of vitriol I see is really disconcerting. I can stomach it, try to soak up the info and move on, but it's so unnecessary and rarely adds anything to the conversation.
I also should say that I totally get the impulse. I even half typed a sarcastic admonition at the end of this and then backspaced because it would have done nothing to add to the point.
So I plan on doing that more often, now.
Reply with information, sources, or personal experiences, and try to put them out there with a little less venom. I get that it takes more time, and no one can expect that from everyone, but if the goal really is to educate and transfer wisdom, there has to be an understanding that it's not easy to do that and that couching the rhetoric with sarcasm is antithetical to the cause.
When I read the comments I want information and opinions. I don't want to have to contend with aggression and condescension.
I know that's all a bit starry eyed, and that there are few things that are absolute, this among them, but by and large that's how I feel about this sort of thing.
But as for my original point, I would always trust the snarker in this case over the harmonious river crab: based on my experience, the former's information is actually more useful than the latter's. Call it an imperfect generalization.
I'm amenable to the idea that it's got its place and that it can be useful. I just wonder how often it's useful compared to how often it's used.
To me it's a matter of figuring out whether or not you're really trying to educate as many people as you can, and which delivery method is most powerful for that goal. I think you can accomplish that without attacking someone else. Of course there's the idea that emotional responses can catalyze a more poignant memory, and as you say, draw more attention to your point.
shrug
And this is why I drink.
edit: (in reference to the response below) I should say that I've abstracted away from the concrete post that triggered all of this. Either way, this is the kind of dialogue I like. You can disagree on some things, get something out of it, and never have to get in anyone's face)
I'm not sure if it is fair to say the commenter was "attacking someone" unless they were spewing out ad hominems, of which I didn't see any.
Point of order here: he never used the word "useless". He also didn't dismiss the post for being negative (he said "I’m not against negative top comments per se but they should at least be factual").
> 1) Thai law was brought up a number of times and you do appear to be violating it. This is probably something that needs to be said.
You're definitely right at least in part: the law should be mentioned. People shouldn't be heading to Thailand without understanding the immigration laws beforehand.
But I don't think accusations that the author is violating the law need to be said. Unless the commenter is a lawyer who specializes in Thai immigration, he or she is simply not qualified to make that assessment. For all we know as readers, he could've unintentionally omitted or oversimplified parts of his above-the-board visa process.
> 2) You mention how cheap it is while he believes its more expensive, but you may have gotten a good deal or stayed in areas that others wouldn't want to.
The author explicitly mentions avoiding Bangkok in his article. The comment in question focused primarily on his experiences in Bangkok. The top commenter was calling him out on something the author agrees with and could've been avoided had the commenter read a bit more carefully.
> 3) He shares a number of anecdotes (sex workers, etc) that differ from your anecdotes. Thailand is a big place, you can both be right, and the more information the better.
Mere disagreement while providing anecdotes is fine and should be expected in a discussion forum. But that's not all the top commenter did. He couched his differing anecdotal experiences with snarky one-liners that imply the author had no idea what he was talking about:
> Before your pop your Macbook Air in a backpack, read my points.
> Yes, you can live in a concrete block with plastic furniture and eat noodles on the street every day.
> Once you're sick of your local noodle vendor you'll find food prices quite high as well.
> If you can stomach the local swill (think Budweiser without the quality control) knock yourself out.
> When you're sick of taking taxis and the BTS/MRT, have fun buying a car at 50% - 300% above US prices.
> If you really want to fake it here it means constantly traveling in and out of the country.
> To not do it properly means breaking the law in a country where you most likely don't speak the language. Have fun with that.
> If it's not someone you've known for a decade then, well, good luck with that.
Those sentences are snark: sarcastic and snide assertions that do little more than to point out how much the author doesn't know when compared to the commenter. They're not needed, or they could've been phrased much more neutrally, if the goal is merely to compare and contrast two expatriate experiences in Thailand. There were a number of commenters who did do that:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6541708
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6542114
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6540371
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6540640
I agree with the author's sentiment that it's a shame none of them rose higher than the top comment.