I remember when hacker news had a culture that was embarrassed about making contentless unproductive comments like this.

The article is about Peter Higgs and the current academic environment. The Hacker News thread contains a prolonged debate about the merits of some TV show.

and then this comment.

I guess you failed to read the comment I replied to then? Comments sometimes spin off into subjects which are not relevant to the original topic. Welcome to the internet, lighten up.

I did read it. My point is, you contributed nothing. And you are still contributing nothing. And I shouldn't have to point this out. You should be self conscious enough to know that your comment contained nothing.

Seems like your ok with "contributing nothing" yourself though eh? I can keep this up all day.

I suppose I am also confused as to what your definition of meaningful content is. Is this meaningful?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612

How about this? I guess comments meant purely to attack another member is meaningful content:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750

Seems like you have a double standard here. You've posted more than one comment which adds nothing to the value (per your secret definition) of a given thread. You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out.

> Seems like you have a double standard here. (...) You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out.

Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Would the fact that I, as an addict, still smoke a pack a day magically make smoking any less harmful?

> Welcome to the internet, lighten up.

I have to agree with TheZenPsycho. Yes, this is the internet. But no, this is not /b. This is a domain of the internet called Hacker News, which (at least in theory [2]) has certain standards. pg has even expressed worry about the dilution of HN [3].

> I can keep this up all day.

I find your antagonism especially disappointing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque

[2] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[3] http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

    Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful?

Thanks, but trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart and I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct. The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. So yes, ad hominem, that was the point.

> I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct

Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking.

> trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart

But fallacies are useful for stating my position succinctly and accurately. If you're familiar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me is negligible. If you're unfamiliar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me (upon reading wikipedia and my example) is at least reduced. The alternative is to concoct an explanation which leads us to speak past each other. I give you Example A:

> The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments.

No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." I agree, fallacies don't make me look any smarter. But I imagine they avoid making me look as dumb as someone who can't defend their own position properly.

Furthermore, my comment was a Refutation of the Central Point. As a fellow HN user, surely you recognize this from How to Disagree [1]. Your point was predicated solely upon double standards (and vitriol?). And then I stated not only that double standards are noise, but also why I actually disagree with you by referencing HN's guidelines.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

    No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me."

No, that's not my point. My point is dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome. I should be "ashamed" fro replying to a comment to say that I like a TV show? Yeesh, get over yourselves.

Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life (that was sarcasm in case it was lost on you).

Taking your point at face value invites more problems than the point I originally inferred. For example:

> dealing with you and Zen is just wearisome.

Maybe your judgement indicates more about you than us? Perhaps you feel that dealing with us is wearisome? It's not as if I have an html tag floating next to me that says <wearisome>. It's like that joke about how Bob says "all my ex's are crazy", yet the most obvious common thread in Bob's failed relationships is Bob himself. Or like when a rookie whines, and the members say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the street."

But given your point (verbatim: "dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome.") was to insult others (rather than offer constructive criticism, even if it's "get over yourself"), I can't think of any reason why you would reply to Zen to begin with other than to satisfy your own ego. I mean, really, what else in the world did you expect to have changed via insult?

> I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life

Sarcasm duly noted. But I admit, I'm having issues with the scope of this discussion (see what I did there? ',:D ). First, we're playing by the rules of the internet. Next, we're playing by the rules of real life. I've noticed a pattern. Rather reify to HN, you abstract away from HN. What's next, the rules of the cosmos? The 11 commandments decried by the flying spaghetti monster himself?

I think you're in denial of where we are. Like, have you ever even skimmed the guidelines? Do you say "You must be a blast in real life" when people sush you in a library? Do you derive satisfaction from rickrolling facebook, and comment "we're on the web. street rulez"? On one hand, it probably really is no big deal. But on the other hand, the librarian is probably justified in moderating the library.

    Maybe your judgement indicates more about you than us? Perhaps you feel that dealing with us is wearisome?

Nope, it is an objectively wearisome process. You guys are oh so lame.

Yeah. Really clever jokes like saying "Nintendo 64" then pausing for laughter.

So... you pick out one joke you don't like and presume that no one else should like the show? Right... so you don't like it. Who cares? I certainly don't. I like it. There, I cancelled out your dislike.

No, I just don't think making references for their own sake is particularly clever.

But if you like that kind of joke and you like the show, that's great. It's not something I would judge you as a person for. Heck, I'd be happy to suggest Mr. Penumbra's 24 Hour Bookstore, if you haven't read it already.

I honestly can't recall the joke you referred to. I do remember other jokes which I found funny. I apologize for that.

I don't watch the show, personally, but it's irritating that everyone has to come down on things like this. People spend their time doing all kinds of crazy things. If it's fun and you enjoy it, then I think that's great. There are worse ways to spend your time.

Apparently, that's not good enough, though. Everyone has to critique how other people enjoy themselves.

I've read books on algorithm analysis and I just excitedly purchased a book on discrete mathematics through haskell. Know what else I've read? The entire Sookie Stackhouse series. So friggin what?

My life was so much easier to live when I decided that it was okay to peacefully allow other people enjoy things that I don't.

(oh yeah, I don't think the parent post was saying bad things; it just seemed like a decent place to say it :) )

It's public culture, and popular enough to be held representative of a large subgroup of people. There's no reason why people shouldn't give their honest opinion of it.

It's a network sitcom... seriously, a network sitcom... I know I don't care for the opinions of people who base their beliefs on pop culture. You should give it a try.

And the parent wasn't trying to deny anyone their right to free speech, yeesh. He is just annoyed by those who feel the need to tell others what they should and should not like.

Honestly, I'm surprised many here have even seen the show. A lot of the echo chamber prattle around here seems to be like that Onion article about "local man won't stop saying he doesn't watch TV" or something like that.

I'm by no means arguing against free speech, and I don't have a problem with people disliking something or even voicing their dislike.

I just get miffed by the condescending tone a lot of folks take.

> My life was so much easier to live when I decided that it was okay to peacefully allow other people enjoy things that I don't.

Yes it is, it will also be easier when you don't complain about people complaining about things they don't like.

Right, that's a zinger response, but the main thing I'm driving at isn't that I want my life to be as easy as it possibly can be. I'm driving at the value of not being judgemental and condescending, especially if the topic is really arbitrary. I think the case could be made that in some circumstances judgement and criticism are perfectly valid and useful, but I don't see vitriolic condemnations of someone's sitcom preference as ever being particularly useful to anyone. Moreover, I think that it's actively socially counter-productive.