Why do humans pretend this is the most sensible way to go.
You know on HN even with all these “polite” rules to make everything civil I still see shit that really just bends and goes around the rules. Example comments:
“I’m baffled at how someone can think this way.”
The tone is always performatively mild, but the intent is identical to “you’re an idiot.” Except they wrap it in this passive-aggressive intellectual concern like they’re diagnosing a malfunctioning toaster.
“I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.”
Translation: I follow it. I just think it’s bad and I want you to feel that without me explicitly saying it.
“That’s an interesting interpretation.”
Translation: No one reasonable would interpret it that way, but we can both pretend I said something neutral.
“Did you maybe skip a step in your argument?”
Translation: The step you skipped was ‘have a coherent thought.’
“I think you might be missing some context.”
Translation: I’ll imply you’re uninformed rather than wrong. Sounds nicer.
“This has been discussed before.”
Translation: Your point is outdated and you are late to the conversation everyone smarter already finished.
“I don’t think this is as profound as you think it is.”
Translation: You think you’re being deep and it’s embarrassing for you.
“I suspect there may be some underlying assumptions you’re not aware of.”
Translation: I will declare myself deeper and more self-aware without proving it.
And then the very popular:
“Could you provide sources for that?”
Translation: I don’t need sources. I already believe you’re wrong. I just know requesting them is a socially approved way to say ‘I don’t take you seriously.’
There’s also the master-level move:
“Hmm.”
Just that.
Translation: I’m establishing dominance by making you explain yourself more.
⸻
None of these break “civility.”
They’re engineered to never say the insult, only to induce the feeling that you should be embarrassed.
It’s polite warfare.
A full linguistic economy built around implying stupidity while retaining deniability.
That’s what humans think is “sensible.” I can tell you when someone of 20 years decides to fucking quit it's because he's dealing with the above type of disrespect and the whole thing hit a crescendo.
Translation: "I feel like your tirade/word salad/stream of consciousness/<insert a similar descriptor> is so worthless I'm worse for having had to endure it, I don't care about most of it and disagree with the rest, but there are reasons I need to respond to it politely".
Great analysis. It's especially ironic to see it play out in this context given the well-known Japanese predilection for building consensus and buy-in; the flip side of this is that those outside the circle of decision-makers are especially sensitive to the subtexts you identify.
This style of communication certainly has its uses, and I too resort to it when I want to indicate firm disagreement without being aggressive, as do most people. I think the reasons it has generated so much pushback on this occasion are twofold: it's being used to dismiss the concerns of whole community by infantilizing a long-time leader of said community, and it's doing so in the context of translation itself. That is, volunteer effort and tools that are supposed to improve communication and mutual understanding in theory are in practice being replaced unilaterally with a tool that epitomizes a unilateral and dehumanized approach to information processing.
You know on HN even with all these “polite” rules to make everything civil I still see shit that really just bends and goes around the rules. Example comments:
“I’m baffled at how someone can think this way.”
The tone is always performatively mild, but the intent is identical to “you’re an idiot.” Except they wrap it in this passive-aggressive intellectual concern like they’re diagnosing a malfunctioning toaster.
“I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.” Translation: I follow it. I just think it’s bad and I want you to feel that without me explicitly saying it.
“That’s an interesting interpretation.” Translation: No one reasonable would interpret it that way, but we can both pretend I said something neutral.
“Did you maybe skip a step in your argument?” Translation: The step you skipped was ‘have a coherent thought.’
“I think you might be missing some context.” Translation: I’ll imply you’re uninformed rather than wrong. Sounds nicer.
“This has been discussed before.” Translation: Your point is outdated and you are late to the conversation everyone smarter already finished.
“I don’t think this is as profound as you think it is.” Translation: You think you’re being deep and it’s embarrassing for you.
“I suspect there may be some underlying assumptions you’re not aware of.” Translation: I will declare myself deeper and more self-aware without proving it.
And then the very popular:
“Could you provide sources for that?” Translation: I don’t need sources. I already believe you’re wrong. I just know requesting them is a socially approved way to say ‘I don’t take you seriously.’
There’s also the master-level move:
“Hmm.” Just that. Translation: I’m establishing dominance by making you explain yourself more.
⸻
None of these break “civility.” They’re engineered to never say the insult, only to induce the feeling that you should be embarrassed.
It’s polite warfare. A full linguistic economy built around implying stupidity while retaining deniability.
That’s what humans think is “sensible.” I can tell you when someone of 20 years decides to fucking quit it's because he's dealing with the above type of disrespect and the whole thing hit a crescendo.