> This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

Your first flagged comment says:

> I'm quick to write off people and I won't apologize for it. I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect.

So people think it's about respect because you explicitly said it was about respect.

ok, fair enough, I did say that. I guess my point is that the word is too broad and that isn't how I meant it.

They're not important enough in my life for me to spend my time worrying about. Or maybe I should say I don't get emotionally involved in anything they say at that point. They live in whatever bubble they live in and it has nothing to do with me.

And that some might consider it respect that I simply let them have whatever opinion they want.

I'm genuinely confused.

When someone makes an idiotic comments the options are:

i) ignore them

ii) call them an idiot

iii) explain why they're wrong

All these new guidelines are askig you avoid is ii). This thread has a few other people saying that criticism is valuable. But the guidelines are not asking people to stop giving criticism! They're just asking people to avoid either needless negativity or personal negativity.

You can still, if you wish, destroy bad ideas while staying firmly within the guidelines.

I specifically replied to a comment roughly stating that part of the issue with HN is people who choose option i) by stating I choose option i) and I do it fairly quickly because I have better things to do with my time than give everyone an equal share of both my time and my respect.

I don't want to explain why someone is wrong, they don't care. Do you know how often I've corrected someone online and had them not deny the problem?

Not often enough for me to spend my time worrying about it.

"In ZenoArrow's case it's the arrogance of his thinking he can manipulate me into whatever direction he wants to go."

We clearly disagreed, I'll not deny that, but the arrogance and manipulation you're referring to was an invitation to comment on something I believe is fundamental. I didn't tell you whether you had to agree, but instead was looking for the point at which our opinions diverged. I can't make you agree with me, nor would I necessarily want to, a world where we all thought the same would be lesser for it, instead I'd prefer to find out about the thoughts guiding our differences.

Perhaps the problem was that I wasn't angry, that you needed conflict in order to bring out what you could've said. I can't be sure that it's true for you, but in my experience some people are fuelled by that sort of drama. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not what I personally want.

You just keep talking at him. You don't seem to understand that he's winning. Everything you're saying just slides off him.

He's stated his position and believes it's confirmed by how he's been downvoted and flagkilled. For what it's worth, I think he's right, I think that whatever you think of his comment, the reception was disproportionate; but that doesn't matter now: he's gone.

And you jabber on and on. You find his other comments so you can make him read more, desperate for another chance. You can't walk away.

You hate to lose.

I bet you want to respond with some gimmick about how you're concerned about him. Stop lying to yourself: he left the conversation with you, and you're alone talking to yourself. This is about you now.

(Well, and me. But I'm trying to teach you something about how your constant search for a middle ground is in reality pretty condescending.)

> And you jabber on and on. [...] You can't walk away. You hate to lose.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Moreover this subthread has gone far off topic. Please stop.

dang, thank you, but it's okay. I don't feel offended, and I'd rather let this thread run its course, but if you do want to stop the comments I don't mind.

FWIW, I've admired how you've responded with consideration and honesty to feedback elsewhere in the comments, clearly it's a contentious issue but I believe the thread has been more productive as a result of your approach.

"But I'm trying to teach you something about how your constant search for a middle ground is in reality pretty condescending."

Good. So why is it condescending? What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with?

Sorry this took so long. I was rate-limited and still rate-limited before I went to sleep.

>What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with?

To start, here it feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was offensive to be reasonable with those you disagree with.

Now I can see, on closer reading, that you're just extending what I said about finding a middle ground. And it's a good way to detect where a miscommunication is by saying what you think I meant (that is, you're telling me how you received it).

But it causes a miscommunication in that I receive it as an uncharitable reading: the tone of "I'm lightly incredulous that this is what you mean, please clarify" becomes "You believe something utterly and obviously ridiculous."

But that's not really what this has been about. More to the point, I think the problem you're having is that you assume someone has to want to meet you in the middle. There isn't any rule that says this about discussion, even if it's generally assumed and often true.

mreiland made his point and then he didn't want to spend any more time with you.

>Your post perfectly shows part of the problem, which is... you can give it, but you can't take it. If you're not prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, why would you expect something different in return?

>>You missed my point, have a good day.

In some ways it's unfair of him to do this, but at least he did it directly and honestly. And you still had, in my opinion, a chance to re-engage him. You tried:

>>>Then let's discuss what I missed, perhaps I did misunderstand you. Let's start again from this, do you agree with the golden rule? What does it mean to you? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

Why did this fail? I think it's at least partly true that you weren't being fair to him. You are trying to find middle ground, it's true, but it's middle ground you're beginning with conditions favorable to you.

And more importantly it's a bit absurd to ask him to move to a discussion on basic ethics terms. That's where I got the 'school exercise' bit: you're asking him to jump through hoops to satisfy your desire for a peaceful resolution, or a 'further understanding,' or whatever it is your goal was.

Rereading your comments more closely, I'm starting to think maybe the problem is that you're charmingly naive (and I mean that well): you're a genuinely positive person with thick skin and an earnest desire to communicate. Maybe today that reacted badly with a gruff and grumbling persona; maybe in communicating with friends you can successfully get people to sit down with introspective and meditative discussion questions like this one:

> I know I've made mistakes in the past. If I make a mistake in something I've said, does that exclude me from being able to learn from it? How will you know who is capable of learning without exploring their reasoning?

"Let's go around the circle and share an experience, shall we?" -- Fun in some situations, but not really appropriate to mreiland.

I think that's most of what I can think of to say about your tactics.

I'd like to broaden something out to make a meta-point, though, because none of that explains why mreiland was so deliberate about ignoring you. In some sense, the conversation is about the right to write someone off. It's a right mreiland exercised gleefully in your case; perhaps even a touch too gleefully, but even that's part of the point: it's his right to do so if he chooses, because you can't force him into a conversation.

There's also a sense in which that was a necessary part of his strategy: refuse to muddle that point and stick solely to the right to discontinue conversation. I don't know how well he managed that in the end, but the main event is still: mreiland made a level-headed comment saying "I'm inclined to write people off," and got written off by the community.

"I'm starting to think maybe the problem is that you're charmingly naive (and I mean that well): you're a genuinely positive person with thick skin and an earnest desire to communicate."

That's one of the highest compliments I've ever received! Even naïve sounds heroic to me in the way you put it. Thank you very much!

"Maybe today that reacted badly with a gruff and grumbling persona"

Maybe, but it wasn't completely uncalled for. For what it's worth, I understood the risk of asking for clarity with a leading question, it's not the first time it has backfired. Sometimes I forget people need to vent freely, as I often want to cut to the core of the matter. It's possibly a sign of impatience, I'll try to give people more time in the future.

To be clear, whilst I certainly do desire peaceful resolution of conflict, I'm also interested in the truth. Whilst all truth is subjective, it should bear to stand up to a certain amount of scrutiny. You're quite right that mreiland made a level-headed comment about writing people off and subsequently got written off, my only real feedback was that such a response was predictable. The reasons given for writing off were slightly different (writing off idiocy vs. writing off intolerance) but at the core it's the same issue, in that to give is to receive in return. I don't know mreiland's history, and maybe he/she has more reason than most to write some people off quickly, all I can say is that it's a vicious cycle. I hoped some exploration of it could help change that cycle, but it didn't work out this time, no problem, time for me to let it go.

Thank you for your thoughtful response throwawaymaroon, it was very much appreciated.

> I'd like to broaden something out to make a meta-point, though, because none of that explains why mreiland was so deliberate about ignoring you. In some sense, the conversation is about the right to write someone off. It's a right mreiland exercised gleefully in your case; perhaps even a touch too gleefully, but even that's part of the point: it's his right to do so if he chooses, because you can't force him into a conversation.

Exactly it. Normally I just stop responding, but I was making a point.

Putting real effort into each and every internet conversation in which a disagreement happens will leave you emotionally drained and angry at the world.