I hate that. I dont think it requires an existing back-and-forth either. If you say something different than the person you're replying to, they assume you mean the opposite of what they believe, presumably because that's easier than untangling the web of agreements and disagreements, errors and truths and unknowns, that exist between any two real people...
If you're reading this, for the love of all that is sane, next time you make a comment, reply to what the other person actually says, not what you think they mean. If you feel the need to respond to something unsaid, make it explicit.
Usually when someone says something you don't like or disagree with, you counter with an argument of your own.
If you can't think of anything to say in response, might I suggest that you either don't know the subject as well as you think, or you know the person you are arguing with is right and you have no retort.
It's not a debate but a conversation. Treat it like an exchange of information, not something you can win or lose. If the other person doesn't follow, then you can stop replying.
You: "Argument argument, if someone disagrees with how I argue, I'll listen."
Reply: "Here's why your argument style sucks."
You: "Hey, you're wrong. You're really wrong! You don't know what debates are. I'm going to talk to you like a child. By the way, you're wrong."
Yes, you certainly sound like someone interested in listening to constructive criticism. I've gotten into heated debates on HN before (with plenty of downvotes) but there is a certain level of respect people have for each other here. You sound like someone who is talking down to folks, which is an unacceptable way to argue in general, particularly when you're entering into a crowd that has made it a point to be respectful at all times. The nice thing about HN is you basically can check your ego at the door since anything you've managed to achieve in your life has surely been overshadowed by no small number of others who are reading this site.
Asking myself that question when I reply to someone who replied to me helps cut that off.
I also picture that meme-ably smug fellow sitting behind a card table with some provoking statement, and the sentence “Prove me wrong.” No, I don’t owe you my time and energy to try changing a mind not interested in changing, but in attracting attention.
> Force them to address your argument before allowing the conversation to progress.
That's generally boorish and can make for short uninformative conversations. If someone evades your argument multiple times, like it or not that's an answer.
I feel like I could have written this exact comment. Most arguments just aren't worth it. You have to know that the other person has this same approach (willingness to see another point of view, plus manners) or else it's just not worth it. Pretty often I'll offer a "disagreement" and if I'm not satisfied that my debating partner is listening, that's it, I'm out.
For the article, I'm ok with the message, but the title is just clickbait. You don't need to get offended more, you just need to be aware of when you are and try to figure out why.
I'm sure many of us have experienced the effect where you're having an argument with someone where it doesn't really matter and the other person agrees with you to shut you up.
This is a good example of the mechanism I was describing whereby someone is upset by someone else portraying a technically defensible point of view on an opinion they find harshly disagreeable. This user probably thinks I'm being annoying. Which is a good reason why I would try not to talk to them like this in a professional context, or really just at all on this issue if I felt it was going to exacerbate the issue.
Please do both of us a favor and never reply to me again. Given every exchange we've ever had, it's clear we see the world from such fundamentally incompatible premises that dialog is not possible. That being the case, any further engagement is clearly meant to antagonize.
The only thing more annoying than that is when you pick a fight with them about their reasons and they insist on believing that you must disagree with their conclusions.
Have you tried that? I have, and people don't respond right away. Maybe it sinks in and they get it weeks or months or years later, but so far no one has come back to thank me.
Whenever someone makes an identity-shattering or worldview-shattering argument to me, I violently resist it for weeks before it sinks in. Maybe that's what happens to other people, but it's still rather unsatisfying.
reply