One thing that's wrong with HN is that perceived "negativity" often gets condemned in exactly the way you have done here.
It seems as if a significant number of HN readers have never really participated in a spirited discussion with arguments made from multiple different perspectives. Maybe any kind of apparent conflict scares them, maybe they project their own aggression onto a comment that seems to go against the grain of the discussion. It will never change.
There are many easy ways to rephrase OP's comment into one that isn't so direct and denigrating. The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.
"Direct", yes. "Denigrating", how?? I'm genuinely asking so I can fix that in the future, unless you think criticising is offending.
>The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.
Again, I can do without the online pretend-therapy. Amazing how perceptive some people are that they deduce the most profound things from a dozen lines of text!
I wanted to say I found your original comment critical, but not offensive. But I found the reply made to you offensive, because personal and aggressive. Which I think is how you see it too.
However, it seems several people took the side of the replier.
So I reviewed your original comment, and I think I've found the problem: it exaggerated and labelled, e.g. droning, talk talk talk, talking about nothing, neverending paragraphs.
Many of these aren't literally true ("nothing", "neverending"). Others are emotionally loaded ("drone"). It's probably almost always better to speak directly, without exaggeration or emotion... but this is particularly important when criticizing.
I didn't notice these at first because I tend to filter out decoration, and just hear the content (i.e the literal meaning) - though this is much easier to do when I'm not personally involved!
I think, "to be blunt", to speak plainly, to get to the point, really mean to be factual and accurate - without emotional language, exaggeration or labeling.
Anyway, I notice dang asked to not continue this thread, but I was troubled by it, and reviewing it helped me - maybe it will help you too.
Maybe you should take a hint huh? If many people are telling you something about yourself (a subject you're inexorably biased on) you think maybe you should reconsider your position?
I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications.
I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence of we really want to talk about. Strip away the accessory, write the simplest, most lucid explanation that captures the idea, and you will see the concepts and connections in their elegance, more clearly than when that is obscured in the middle of pages and pages of talk. In summary: "idea" is more understandable than "idea+cruft".
What do you mean no reason why? Are you expecting a scientific trial? I'm sorry to disappoint you: these are but my opinions.
You're absolutely right. It feels frustrating for your comment to met with ill-faith attacks and insults but that's no excuse to lower the level in turn. Apologies for that.
The comment of yours that I responded to only has an allusion to a quotation and nothing else substantiating any of your points. Yes if you're going to proclaim and critize on something material (like the best way to teach someone something) I expect you to have scientific trials.
One thing that's wrong with HN is that perceived "negativity" often gets condemned in exactly the way you have done here.
It seems as if a significant number of HN readers have never really participated in a spirited discussion with arguments made from multiple different perspectives. Maybe any kind of apparent conflict scares them, maybe they project their own aggression onto a comment that seems to go against the grain of the discussion. It will never change.