5 ms·

No he means "The Chinese". Not the people, the government. He was quite clear about that in the full quote. > The Chinese also do this. (As in, the government

No he means "The Chinese". Not the people, the government. He was quite clear about that in the full quote. > The Chinese also do this. (As in, the government seems to encourage it outright.) Way to be outraged through your own selective reading.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 7y ago
Okay, to be fair, I wrote the comment, then immediately thought, okay that could be misinterpreted, then added the parenthetical right afterwards. I didn't do an "(EDIT:)" because I thought no one would have come in so soon. The poor sap might have fallen prey to my foolish decision to use an optimistic concurrency protocol.
- mkhalil 7y ago
  I commend you for your honesty. Also, I don't think that he was totally wrong in calling it out, but the phrasing he used was very unnecessary. It would be better phrased as a question, like: "Don't you think it's racist to refer to them as "The Chinese"?" or something less dumb than accusing you of racism. I understand HN is a tech place, but since race can play a factor in practically all subjects, it can be a healthy discussion if spoken about maturely.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    it can be a healthy discussion if spoken about maturely Knee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." The normalization and acceptance of such reactions is what leads to toxic community atmospheres and the "social epistemological catastrophe" of a witch-hunt mentality. In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later" is against the stated policy around these parts of the Principle of Charity. Just look around the Internet, and tell me what you see in this regard. I'm obliged to link this again, for the good of all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
  - mkhalil 7y ago
    > Knee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." I literally said his response was dumb so I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. I understand if you misread my comment, but I'm baffled otherwise. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it through if we want. (edit: typo)
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. Actually, your comment could indeed be read that way. Therefore I'm obliged to push back against such a position, even if you didn't mean it precisely that way. I'm generally having a conversation for the sake of the 3rd party. The lurkers are the majority of this site's users. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it through if we want. My un-provable suspicion is that civil discourse itself is being targeted by nefarious forces. It's either that, or the emergent incentive structures of social media as currently constructed are having the same effect. Or both. It's bad either way.
      - mkhalil 7y ago
        > My un-provable suspicion is that civil discourse itself is being targeted by nefarious forces. I don't know if it's a collective of forces, but I have to agree with the opinion that civil discourse is being targeted. There's been enormous political polarization in the past decade or less, and there is a growing list of topics or social movements that if I even LIST as debatable or in need of further discussion, would put myself in great danger of being targeted, defamed or worse. And the worst part is, once you have been attacked and mobbed by this new public shaming tactic, very very rarely is being defensive or opening a dialogue something people want, they just want vengeance, and submissiveness.
        stcredzero 7y ago
        And the worst part is, once you have been attacked and mobbed by this new public shaming tactic, very very rarely is being defensive or opening a dialogue something people want, they just want vengeance, and submissiveness. That's a brilliant and concise way of putting it. I have a mind to steal it!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stcredzero 7y ago

Okay, to be fair, I wrote the comment, then immediately thought, okay that could be misinterpreted, then added the parenthetical right afterwards. I didn't do an "(EDIT:)" because I thought no one would have come in so soon. The poor sap might have fallen prey to my foolish decision to use an optimistic concurrency protocol.

mkhalil 7y ago
I commend you for your honesty. Also, I don't think that he was totally wrong in calling it out, but the phrasing he used was very unnecessary. It would be better phrased as a question, like: "Don't you think it's racist to refer to them as "The Chinese"?" or something less dumb than accusing you of racism. I understand HN is a tech place, but since race can play a factor in practically all subjects, it can be a healthy discussion if spoken about maturely.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  it can be a healthy discussion if spoken about maturely Knee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." The normalization and acceptance of such reactions is what leads to toxic community atmospheres and the "social epistemological catastrophe" of a witch-hunt mentality. In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later" is against the stated policy around these parts of the Principle of Charity. Just look around the Internet, and tell me what you see in this regard. I'm obliged to link this again, for the good of all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- mkhalil 7y ago
  > Knee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." I literally said his response was dumb so I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. I understand if you misread my comment, but I'm baffled otherwise. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it through if we want. (edit: typo)
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. Actually, your comment could indeed be read that way. Therefore I'm obliged to push back against such a position, even if you didn't mean it precisely that way. I'm generally having a conversation for the sake of the 3rd party. The lurkers are the majority of this site's users. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it through if we want. My un-provable suspicion is that civil discourse itself is being targeted by nefarious forces. It's either that, or the emergent incentive structures of social media as currently constructed are having the same effect. Or both. It's bad either way.
    - mkhalil 7y ago
      > My un-provable suspicion is that civil discourse itself is being targeted by nefarious forces. I don't know if it's a collective of forces, but I have to agree with the opinion that civil discourse is being targeted. There's been enormous political polarization in the past decade or less, and there is a growing list of topics or social movements that if I even LIST as debatable or in need of further discussion, would put myself in great danger of being targeted, defamed or worse. And the worst part is, once you have been attacked and mobbed by this new public shaming tactic, very very rarely is being defensive or opening a dialogue something people want, they just want vengeance, and submissiveness.
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        And the worst part is, once you have been attacked and mobbed by this new public shaming tactic, very very rarely is being defensive or opening a dialogue something people want, they just want vengeance, and submissiveness. That's a brilliant and concise way of putting it. I have a mind to steal it!