top | item 29164565

(no title)

wexler88 | 4 years ago

The implication is that one needs to contribute a detailed response to any statement, no matter how shallow and foolish, or else accept it to the discussion as though it had some validity.

discuss

order

dang|4 years ago

Not replying is not the same thing as "accepting it as though it had some validity". As long as you work with that false assumption, you're stuck in a tough place.

The internet is wrong about nearly everything. You can't fight it that way. Responding with a shallow dismissal or putdown is just a variant of the same dynamic—it encourages more of the same, and so creates more of what you're trying to combat. Your two options for not doing that are (1) not replying—because then at least you're not feeding it; or (2) patiently and respectfully supplying better information.

Don't get me wrong, I know how hard it is in practice—it requires going against one's habits at the nervous-system level.* That ranges between difficult and impossible depending on the level of activation. But it's definitely possible, and it's basically what this community is basically working on learning together. Why? Because the goal of this place has always been to have an internet forum that escapes the default fate of deteriorating into suckage—or at least staves it off as long as possible.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

* I don't know if it's helpful or not, but another way of saying this is that we want reflective reactions rather than reflexive ones: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...