There's no lack of charity. I would know, I wrote it. And the downvotes occurred before the community critique. Which also must have hit a nerve.
I think meta-questioning "do you even need to ask other's what this is about, why not let it work on you first" is responding to the strongest version of what was said, much stronger than simply answering the question.
People misinterpret dissent of the line for hostility, more so with something unfamiliar, where they want even more to have an answer "what is it". It's not very intellectually humble, but it is hilarious.
Interpreting hostility in my response ought to violate guidelines as well. Why should I be punished for others mistaken interpretations of hostility?
I think it's more about them reacting to their own misinterpretation.
I think it's a consequence of HN self-optimizes for people to be able to efficiently not just learn content from an article, but efficiently form an opinion from the comments. It's not so easy to form an opinion when there's multiple valid strands. I think people are projecting their expectation to not be confused.
"Don't tell me to expand my mind, just tell me what to think." It's not my problem if people get uncomfortable forming their own opinions sometimes. I think it's a good thing to have your own interpretation of Kicks Condor. That doesn't hurt anyone...but it might take you a bit of time/effort/discomfort to form it.
I guess I'm OK to do things that way because I grew up going to a lot of art galleries. Comfortable with ambiguity in some things. I think it's funny how engineers need everything to be explicit, and how that's connected to programming needing that as well. I think they could laugh at that about themselves, rather than getting seriously grumpy and hating on me...but hey, that's them, not me.
I think meta-questioning "do you even need to ask other's what this is about, why not let it work on you first" is responding to the strongest version of what was said, much stronger than simply answering the question.
People misinterpret dissent of the line for hostility, more so with something unfamiliar, where they want even more to have an answer "what is it". It's not very intellectually humble, but it is hilarious.
Interpreting hostility in my response ought to violate guidelines as well. Why should I be punished for others mistaken interpretations of hostility?
I think it's more about them reacting to their own misinterpretation.
I think it's a consequence of HN self-optimizes for people to be able to efficiently not just learn content from an article, but efficiently form an opinion from the comments. It's not so easy to form an opinion when there's multiple valid strands. I think people are projecting their expectation to not be confused.
"Don't tell me to expand my mind, just tell me what to think." It's not my problem if people get uncomfortable forming their own opinions sometimes. I think it's a good thing to have your own interpretation of Kicks Condor. That doesn't hurt anyone...but it might take you a bit of time/effort/discomfort to form it.
I guess I'm OK to do things that way because I grew up going to a lot of art galleries. Comfortable with ambiguity in some things. I think it's funny how engineers need everything to be explicit, and how that's connected to programming needing that as well. I think they could laugh at that about themselves, rather than getting seriously grumpy and hating on me...but hey, that's them, not me.