Comment by dang

3 days ago

"Don't be snarky."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

2 comments

dang

ltbarcly3 1 day ago

"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

I don't think there's anything more curmudgeonly or generic than just pasting rules.

Crackpots don't deserve thoughtful replies and practically they cannot be given thoughtful replies. Thoughtfully replying to every crackpot would absorb all the non crackpot resources.

And before it's suggested that "calling someone a crackpot is an ad-hominem" or the more advanced "who is the arbiter of what is a crackpot? Wouldn't that just let you dismiss any argument you don't like by saying it's made by a crackpot?"

This theory has sufficient characteristics of a crackpot theory:

  Immune to falsification
    There's no actual theory here
  Exhibiting specific rhetorical markers 
    Central position of Galileo or Einstein 
    Dense jargon that mimics academic language but lacks coherent meaning
      "When belief systems interact, the real contest isn’t just about exchanging arguments—it’s about trying to reshape each other’s underlying structures. Each side looks for ways to weaken, sever, or absorb the connections that make the other system stable."
        What does it mean for two belief systems to interact?
        What does reshaping the other sides structure mean?
        How do you absorb connections and how is that an advantage?  What does it even mean?
        The notion of stability is vague and undefined, but does all the heavy lifting in this argument.  This shows a complete lack of even familiarity with how actual philosophical and academic writing is conducted or how arguments such as this must be constructed.
  Characterized by specific behavioral patterns
    Claiming fundamental insights in a field where they lack sufficient training to have mastered the basics
    Bypassing peer review to appeal directly to media or public 
    Misunderstanding or misrepresenting fundamental facts    
      example: "The Church’s liturgical calendar—including the calculation of Easter—relied on the apparent movements of the Sun and Moon around a stationary Earth."

dang 5 hours ago

I certainly agree that it's generic (and therefore boring). Such mod comments are an out-of-band side channel—not at all the intended use of the site, necessary for it to function (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). (I can't see what's curmudgeonly about it though)
Even if you're right about the OP's theory, your post was obviously against HN's rules. It would be better to take responsibility for that instead of pointing the finger at someone else. Even assuming you're right about their ideas, you damage the community here by posting snarky putdowns. Most readers won't notice the subtle difference in this snarky putdown; they'll just take it as another indication that it's ok to be snarky and aggressive here, which it's not.
p.s. I was going to add something about your account history, but looking at more recent comments, they seem to be much more in keeping with HN's intended spirit than I remember from the past. It might be that my memory is tricking me, but if not, thanks for that—it is greatly appreciated!