Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?
I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.
The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.
There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.
[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you
> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]
In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.
To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.
> where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic…
Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.
Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?
[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.
I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.
What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.
Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.
Do you have a constructive point, or are you just doing some vague both sidesism ?
Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?
I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.
In the direction of absurd.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47103957 felt dismissive. If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.
There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.
[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you
> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]
In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.
To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.
> where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic…
Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.
Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?
[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.
I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.
What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.
Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.