I find myself becoming my worst self on here, whether I want to or not, in reaction to others being their worst selves too. It's difficult to rise above the fray. Dang must have infinite patience, but I don't, and most people don't seem to either. Dang sets an example that few are willing to follow. I also feel that he gives people way too much lenience. It's like, "I see you've violated the guidelines badly multiple times lately. That's not cool. If you don't stop, then I might have to ban you, someday in the future, or maybe not. I'll give you one... hundred more chances." I'm exaggerating here, but only slightly. ;-)
I know that some commenters think that HN is great place for intelligent, friendly discussion. I personally don't understand that. It's like we live in different worlds. But I'm certainly not alone in seeing HN as "toxic", something mentioned in the linked article, as well as by people I know elsewhere. I come here for the topics, which are often very interesting to me, yet all too often I come away from HN regretting my participation. Maybe this is just a bad habit that needs breaking. :-)
> I find myself becoming my worst self on here, whether I want to or not, in reaction to others being their worst selves too. It's difficult to rise above the fray.
You always have a choice. If you display your worst self on here, you choose to do so. You can opt not to engage with comments that are a negative to the community.
Sigh. I would respectfully ask you to perform some self-reflection about this very reply of yours. I was admitting to a common, natural, human fallibility, and you chose to reply in a way that seemed blameful and condescending.
"You always have a choice" is a cliché here in the HN comments. It's not an interesting response.
Even when meant well, how such responses are read is often far harsher than how they are written.
Increasingly I'll restrain myself to a simple acknowledgement or thanks. Occasionally an apology if there seems to be offense.
(Both on HN and other sites / platforms.)
Yes, this thread painfully exhibits why I said, "all too often I come away from HN regretting my participation."
Neither Infinitesimus nor soulofmischief seemed to consider applying the principle "You can opt not to engage" to their own choices and replies, and I feel that the latter's reply was even worse, because it came after I already suggested self-reflection to the former.
The key difference is that I don't have a problem engaging, whereas you stated you have a problem engaging, and so I offered a second opinion.
It sounds like you didn't want people to engage your comment at all. I frequently opt not to engage when I feel like it, but I'm not restricted to only engaging with comments of which you approve. If you don't want replies, the best option might be just not to post.
Untrue. The replies by bachmeier >>36916075 dredmorbius >>36918463 and philwelch >>36916010 were fine. Respectful, not condescending. The problem is not the existence of replies, it's the content and tone of replies. There's a reason I only mentioned the two of you.
An opinion about what? The problem is that it was an opinion about me.
Criticize ideas all you want, but getting personal and criticizing other commenters is not something that should be happening here at all. "You had a choice" is not a productive or desirable line of conversation. Even if I open up and offer an insight into my personal feelings about myself and my own experience, as I did in my original comment, that's not an open invitation to be a target for personal criticism.
> It's your choice to interpret it as negative.
This is just more of the same "You had a choice" handwaving. How about taking some responsibility for your own words and replies and how they might be perceived by others? That's how conversation works. "I can't control how other people perceive my words" is a gross falsehood. Ask professional writers about that. Of course you have a great deal of control over it. You had a choice too.