> if the article is correct about you, that one thing that does enrage you is being mischaracterized or falsely accused, [then you’re probably going to get angry]
Notice my statement was a conditional, premised on TFA being correct about something that does really bother him. What’s the relevance? That the previous commenter was doing that very thing TFA mentioned.
As much as I agree with the point dang and Ben made in the article about the importance of patience, and kindness, there does come a point where it’s not worth engaging patiently with someone, because it’s just not worth engaging with them at all. Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I don't know how to break it down further.
>Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith.
I agree, but it goes for all of us and insults don't show good faith.
>It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it.
perhaps, but it's not up to me to determine how/if Dang responds to it. I've seen the alternate route where you remove obviously wrong comments and people cry "censorship" or "thin skinned mod" so there's no truly optimal way to handle it.
“What’s the relevance” was a rhetorical question teeing up the next sentence, not an actual question.
Then, after “answering” the rhetorical question I was prompting myself with, you say, “Insults don't show good faith,” as if that’s a telling point against me (or at least, that seemed to me to be the rhetorical structure of your response at that point). What insult(s) are you referring to, because at that point I was just puzzled.
Finally, you’re not the first one to say “it's not up to me to determine how/if Dang responds to it” in a way I interpret as suggesting I was saying that, so I’ll own that one. But I meant it more in a jokey sense of commiseration at the thankless task he has, given that in almost immediate response to a long-form article going into great depth illustrating his (earnestly attempted) thoughtfulness in moderating came an angry.l accusation (because the commenter disagreed with the substance of some moderation decisions, I guess? The anger in the comment seemed to me to come out of nowhere.)
I'd hope it would seem obvious, but since you admit to be puzzled:
tone is hard to convey on the internet and telling a mod to go outside is one of the most low hanging fruit insults on the internet. Given how much it is said unironically on other platforms I didn't appreciate seeing it here. That's the exact kind of stuff that pushed me off the more popular stuff.
> …telling a mod to go outside is one of the most low hanging fruit insults on the internet.
That’s funny, because that interpretation wasn’t anywhere on my mental horizon. It’s another example of something that has struck me going back to my days as a philosophy double major. Philosophers of language like to play up the power of referentiality and intentionality for communication. What always struck me as more impressive is just how much space there is in any given human communicative act for misunderstanding and how that seems more common, and vastly more undertheorized, than successful communication.
Notice my statement was a conditional, premised on TFA being correct about something that does really bother him. What’s the relevance? That the previous commenter was doing that very thing TFA mentioned.
As much as I agree with the point dang and Ben made in the article about the importance of patience, and kindness, there does come a point where it’s not worth engaging patiently with someone, because it’s just not worth engaging with them at all. Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it.