Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.
and frankly, i don't see why i should be civil to people who mindlessly accuse others of not caring about something that, in fact, is hugely important to them, just to appear cynically cool.
more generally, the problem with hn these days is not a lack of politeness; it is a lack of insight, depth and originality. read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm.
maybe you should find some authority figure saying "be smart and care" and try posting that? best of luck...
er... "downvote all you like"?
That sort of remark in response to downmods (or the expectation thereof) is precisely what that line in the guidelines is about. But, if you insist you weren't "inviting", let's look at the next guideline up instead:
Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
"i don't see why i should be civil [...]"
Because the guidelines of this community ask that you be civil, and they don't say "oh, but feel free to ignore that bit if someone annoys you". Because fighting incivility with incivility is the path to flamewars. Because, if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants, you can either: leave, and make everyone involved happier; or: stick around, flout the local etiquette, and piss everyone involved off.
"more generally, the problem with hn these days [...] read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm."
Okay, let's take this submission by way of example. I see... exactly one "cheap, cynical throw-away remark", the very one you replied to -- and it's been modded down to near the bottom. That's the usual pattern I see: sure, there's a little vacuous snark, but it's far from the majority of comments, and it tends to get downmodded pretty hard.
Regardless, if you're so convinced that HN has such endemic problems -- well, my comment earlier "if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants ..." applies equally well to "if you don't like the discussions on an online community...".
"maybe you should find some authority figure [...]"
Oh, my post wasn't about invoking authority. They're guidelines, not rules. But nice job trying to paint me as a cowed bootlicker because I pointed out you were either unaware of or wilfully disregarding them.
Individual faculty members care a lot for their individual grad students, and generally go out of their way to help them. They academic system as a whole (which is partially run by the faculty) treats them pretty poorly (long hours, way below market pay--often near the poverty line and largely without benefits that well educated professionals [which is what grad students are] would expect in any other job).
No one is saying that your partner is a bad person. They're saying that the system is a bad system.
Because civility is the foundation of civilization, i.e., society, even in the microcosm. If you disagree, consider how to carefully respond and present a reasonable argument. This is the stated standard for HN.
If you don't like the tone of discourse and feel it could have insight, depth, and originality, please add insight, depth, and originality, in a civil fashion.
Because it's the protocol here. Because it contributes negatively to the discussion. Because it makes you, and indirectly your point, look worse.
>it is a lack of insight, depth and originality
Perhaps your own bias is preventing you from understanding their perspective? You're not the only person here who knows someone in academia, there is a very wide range in the way professors deal with their students, especially across fields and departments.