Comment by shadowgovt
6 days ago
In Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, he notes that articulate forms of name-calling are still name-calling.
When Graham opens his essay by providing a definition of 'prig' but then using that pejorative over and over again to refer to his conceptual opposition in this essay, how are those who are responding to the essay to respond? It seems we put ourselves on a field disadvantage if we are to argue a point with an author who is immediately resorting to name-calling with one arm tied behind our backs.
I respect this site tries to be something else than other online fora. But it is a site still inextricably tied to Graham and his legacy, so when he drops an essay like this it's reasonable to either expect people responding to it will take the same tone as the founder of this site, or that we should be very, very clear that this site has become something not at all associated with its founding.
Has it?
We ask commenters to stick to the guidelines regardless of what someone else is doing or you feel they're doing (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us). It's the only way this place even has a chance, because it always feels like the other person started it and also did worse.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
But I think you'd be wise to drop this idea of a "field disadvantage". HN threads aren't supposed to be a football game, a tank battle, or anything else where that image would fit. It's not about defeating opponents or, as I used to say, smiting enemies. It's about maximizing interestingness, to put it clumsily.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&que...