Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ alterom 2 days ago

>You seem very angry yourself

To whom? Not to me. Please don't try to assert you know what someone else is feeling.

What they wrote wasn't angry.

>and willing to let that anger guide you to harming someone.

It's not anger that's guiding the call to fire the teacher that willfully mis-grades a correct answer because "they got mad" at the student for understanding the material at above-average level.

It's the compassion for their students.

>Are you so different from that teacher?

Yes. The teacher is given authority over children, and we trust them to be fair and just in their job.

They have violated the trust and abused the authority.

And what got them mad was the student doing what we expect the students to do very well — they learned.

The teacher got mad at their student for learning, and abused the student in retaliation.

The retaliation affected someone who didn't have a choice about being in that position, and who was required to be in that class (by law, among other things), and the consequences of bad grades have lifelong effects.

Meanwhile, the commentor you're responding to observed that the teacher has failed our trust and abused the authority, and deemed such harm to students unacceptable to an extent that warrants revoking this person privilege to teach.

Nobody here has authority over the teacher, nobody trusts us to treat the teacher fairly; the teacher is free to work elsewhere; and we're being displeased about the teacher not merely doing his job badly, but harming his students.

To think these two situations are comparable is a failure of critical thinking, as well as empathy.

>In fact, you might be worse, while he only gave a grade (one of many surely, likely to have no long term impact on life prospects or survival), you would have this man made homeless?

Nobody said anything about making the teacher homeless.

His need of having a home doesn't grant him a right to hurt children.

If you're not happy about firing potentially leading to homelessness, you may advocate for things like housing guarantees, income guarantees, and so on.

The Soviet Union, where that was the case, had its merits after all. Saying this without sarcasm, as someone born in the USSR.

But you appear to be talking in bad faith here (or, at least, without thinking it through), because by your logic, one shouldn't say that anyone should be fired for doing a bad job, by equating firing to homelessness (something specific to the US, BTW).

People are called to be fired (and are fired) for much lesser offenses than willfully hurting children in retaliation.

Most US states are at-will employment states, where anyone can be fired for nearly any reason (the few exceptions are well known).

In light of that, your argument rings hollow.

>Don't be so quick to assume a teacher (at least in the us) has been able to accrue sufficient savings to endure a ruined livelihood.

As someone who's left academia, and has many friends teaching in college or high school: that teacher will likely be better off financially doing anything else anyway.

That said, the system where we pay shit to shitty teachers and justify harm to children by shit pay is shitty all around.

See, the real issue with your rhetoric is that you completely ignore what the teacher has done.

Which is, again, abusing the trust and authority over children (we trust grading to be fair, and a lot depends on it), willfully, in retaliation, for the student having learned a lot.

Whatever the offense was, though, your argument can be repeated verbatim, without any changes, and will be still consistent.

Replace mis-grading with sexual assault, and you can still ask all the same questions you did.

Think about that for a minute. Try it.

...Don't be so quick to assume a teacher (at least in the us) has been able to accrue sufficient savings to endure a ruined livelihood. Sounds very, very extreme to me....

>Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin?

Gee, I must've missed that line in the US Constitution where we're all guaranteed the right to pursuit of happiness, teaching high school classes, and harming students entrusted to our authority by willfully mis-grading them.

Unironically — wouldn't anyone please think of the children?

The teacher's potentially poor finances don't equate to having a right to abuse trust and authority over children.

He has abused that trust in a way that leaves very little hope for him changing his ways (if you think that teacher will ever be happy to see that his student learned more than the teacher knew, I have a bridge to sell to you).

Consequently, there's no reason to believe the teacher should continue having the privilege to have authority over children.

>Maybe we could take the time to understand these impulses in ourselves and be the example we want rather than reflecting the pain we hate to ever increasing magnitudes.

Maybe we could avoid writing empty platitudes and try understanding the points we're responding to.

By "we", I mean "you" (just as you did).

I, for one, have already taught my fair share of mathematics classes over my years in academia, and (imagine it!) not even once I felt the impulse to mis-grade a student for any reason — much less so for being exceptionally good.

The very few times I've had the pleasure to teach someone who I felt was better than I was in the subject that I was teaching, I felt genuinely happy to have such luck.

So I'm all set on being the example.

Now, your turn.

Try to understand what I'm saying here before responding (or otherwise emotionally reacting).

------

TL;DR: abuse of authority over children warrants revoking the privilege to have such authority.

Simple as.

▲ziddoap a day ago | parent [-]

Meta, but this might be one of the longest comments I have seen in reply to a couple sentences. Lots of condescension, emotions, and holier-than-thou in it, right before asking the person to not react emotionally. Fun stuff.

▲alterom a day ago | parent [-]

>Meta

That's one way to say "I'll add nothing of substance to the current conversation, and comment on the perceived tone"

I.e., we're back to reacting emotionally instead of talking about the subject of what to do with teachers who willfully abuse their authority.

To quote a wise person, "Fun stuff".

>longest comment

>emotions

You seem to be confusing the two (and/or are conflating the emotions you are experiencing as a reader with the ones I am experiencing and/or expressing as a writer).

Apropos, as a former instructor, I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy, inconsistency, and logical fallacies in others' writing - and joy is an emotion, so I'll grant you that. I was channeling that emotion.

Unlike the teacher we are discussing, who's been made angry by the work they were evaluating. See?

>holier-than-thou

That was the biggest¹ issue with the comment I was responding to, which I illustrated. Did you miss that?

Their last sentence was, quote:

>>Maybe we could take the time to understand these impulses in ourselves and be the example we want rather than reflecting the pain we hate to ever increasing magnitudes.

This is holier-than-thou. I was responding to it, in a manner that highlighted the issue.

Since you seem to have missed the holier-than-thou instances in "a couple of sentences" of the parent comment, let me point out a few more:

>>You seem very angry yourself, and willing to let that anger guide you to harming someone.

>>Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin?

>>Are you so different from that teacher? In fact, you might be worse

That's four holier-than-thous per 7 sentences (I counted, correct me if needs be).

The last one takes the cake though: and they went as far as calling the grandparent commenter worse than a someone who willfully wronged a child under their authority — all for saying that such abuse and breach of trust warrants a revocation of such a person's privilege of having authority over children.

So, a personal attack and ad hominem on top of all that holier-than-thou.

Note that I am not resorting to implications of that nature - those that say something about what the person I am responding to is (as opposed to discussing something they say or do).

>right before asking the person to not react emotionally

...and yet you boldly went ahead, and did precisely that, feeling piqued on the behalf of the person I was responding to.

There's a reason I asked that, and thank you for providing an illustration why it was necessary.

May I ask you to go back, and re-read the comment I wrote as textual analysis, and respond on substance, not tone? Thank you.

>Lots of condescension

So, let's be clear. Stuff like this:

>>Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin?

...is an example of condescension because it asserts that the person they were talking to was dehumanizing the teacher, and implies that they'd have a difficulty of "humanizing the human" without some extra help from the parent commentor.

I make no such assumptions or assertions about the person I am responding to, as I am commenting exclusively on text that they wrote.

Note how I always include the text I am responding to, to make it clear that my attitude is towards the thing being said, not the person.

The thing being said, in this case, was a piece of emotional drivel, exceptionally rich in logical fallacies and manipulative techniques.

The entire argument was an appeal to emotion: look at how hurt the teacher would be by being fired, you are a bad person for suggesting that.

(Again, did you happen to miss that? This was another reason I asked not to react emotionally).

I rightfully lampoon such rhetoric, whereas the parent commentor was condescending towards a person.

Compare and contrast.

>holier-than-thou

Oh, and I want to come back to that.

See, I taught mathematics for over a decade (as a tutor, grader, teaching assistant, lab instructor, and instructor of record in a class of 90 people).

I've had the grace of teaching a few students I considered brighter than myself, and I felt very happy to have had such privilege.

And not once in my decade of teaching did I feel the urge to mis-grade someone, or thought of defending someone who did so.

I've had children (and young adults) who've gone through such instructors in my classes. They were traumatized. Some cried in my office hours. Some went red in their faces, saying why didn't they show us this in high school.

So, while I am not "holier" than thou (or the parent commentor), I am absolutely more qualified to comment on whether the person we're discussing deserves to continue teaching than anyone here who hasn't had that experience (specifically - that of teaching people who've been traumatized by other instructors).

Please, I urge you to understand what I wrote above.

I am not ashamed to put my name under this statement:

https://romankogan.net/math/

I am saying this to provide a basis for my statements, to qualify them - not to engage in appendage measuring. My experience is what gives my words weight.

Please don't confuse expertise and experience with condescension; and note that I am expressing none towards you.

For all I know, you might be a professor with decades of teaching experience, far more accomplished than I am in everything.

But nobody - including you - is actually holy, much less "holier". We all make mistakes, and sometimes miss some context, or say something stupid.

And pointing those instances out isn't a sin either.

_______

¹Biggest issue aside from ascribing emotion to where there's none, that is, which is a common theme in this thread

▲ziddoap a day ago | parent [-]

Most of this essay is either about wholinator2's comment (for some reason?), or your thoughts on grading and why you're qualified to have those thoughts. Anyways.

>Please don't confuse expertise and experience with condescension

I'm not. Both of your comments are patronizing. You're sprinkling in rhetorical questions implying I can't read the comment I replied to, over-emphasizing parts of your sentences as if I'm a middle-schooler who is first encountering your fancy words, or claiming that I'm being emotional while you're just a beacon of logic.

I've had many experts explain stuff to me without doing any of that. I'm not confused. I even agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying about teachers! But your tone in these comments leaves a lot to be desired.

>But nobody - including you - is actually holy

Obviously. It's a saying, I wasn't being literal.

>Biggest issue aside from ascribing emotion to where there's none, that is, which is a common theme in this thread

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you're writing multiple thousands of words on a topic on a semi-obscure technology forum, in response to a total of like 8 sentences from random people you've never met, you've got some emotions and passion involved. Which is totally fine! Humans aren't meant to be completely devoid of emotion.

▲alterom a day ago | parent [-]

>I even agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying about teachers! But your tone in these comments leaves a lot to be desired.

OK, so we agree on the substance. Excellent.

As for the tone (and discussing it) - we're getting into discussing the emotional response you're having to my writing.

And I firmly posit that most of that emotional response comes from your internal state, rather than my writing. To give a specific example:

>over-emphasizing parts of your sentences as if I'm a middle-schooler who is first encountering your fancy words

Here, you're ascribing intent and attitude to formatting; specifically, you are reading condescension in it.

There are more reasons to italicize words in sentences other than being mean to people.

One good reason is making this text more accessible to neurodivergent people¹.

It has nothing to do with you; such formatting makes people with ADHD have an easier time reading the text - and makes it easier for everyone else to scan the long passages of text fast by providing visual anchors for the key words.

Saying this as both someone with ADHD and a neurodivergence advocate². The formatting makes it easer for me to read (and re-read / proof-read) my own writing.

I'm also autistic.

My words aren't "fancy", and aren't chosen to intimidate - they are simply the words I find most precisely expressing the thoughts I want to communicate.

I assume you know them, otherwise I wouldn't be using them (or would provide an explanation).

Speaking in this manner is a very common autistic trait³, and - most importantly - has nothing to do with you. Yet you perceive an attitude (and/or emotions) towards you in that manner of speech alone.

>claiming that I'm being emotional while you're just a beacon of logic.

I've claimed neither. Can you quote the specific instance?

We all have emotions, as we've established. My point was that I am not basing my arguments on appeal to emotion, nor I am driven by emotions you described when writing this.

Passion for teaching (my special interest) - absolutely; joy of writing - you bet. Those are emotions.

They lead me to producing solid arguments, however (we do agree on the substance, right?). And if there are flaws in the points I'm making, I'm all ears.

And I am not claiming that you are emotional. I am pointing out that when you comment on my tone, and on my tone only, what you are doing is discussing your own emotional response (reaction to how I say things) rather than the content of my argument.

Note the difference between "you are emotional" and "what you are doing here is emotional".

>You're sprinkling in rhetorical questions implying I can't read the comment I replied to

The questions aren't rhetorical.

You went ahead and pointed out that my comment had multiple instances of "holier-than-thou" (where there were none, as I argued above) while saying nothing of the ones I the comment I was responding to.

What gives? I assume you are being fair, which implies you missed them. But I don't want to assume, so I ask.

Other than that - I don't imply that you "can't read" when I ask you to re-read what I wrote with a different lens.

I have provided more context in my response, and I believe my previous comments - which I don't expect anyone to remember! - would come out in a different light with the extra context.

Hence - please re-read them, bearing in mind what I say here.

By the way, this is another instance where you are reading an implication where there's none.

As I said already, I'm autistic, and I don't speak in implications.

Reading with the assumption that nothing is implied is another lens worth trying to see my writing with.

Looping back to the ADHD side of neurodivergence: I read and re-read everything I respond to multiple times because I assume that I'll miss something if I don't, and get myself in a pickle.

I am not asking you to do anything I am not doing myself.

>But your tone in these comments leaves a lot to be desired.

What we are both experiencing now is an example of the so-called Double Empathy problem.⁴

One one side, we have me and /user/ninetyninenine - I clearly have no issue with what they wrote; particularly - I don't have the issue that others have here. I see them as empathic.

The people who respond to them see /user/ninetyninenine as angry, and my defense of them as condescending.

This is a known phenomenon, and I'm sorry, but I am not going to go out of the way and adjust my writing style to protect the feelings of people who refuse to follow a simple request of taking my words literally, not ascribing emotions to me, and distinguish their emotional response from the content of my arguments.

Doing so has a cost⁵ to me that I can't afford to incur.

Again, this:

>I even agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying about teachers!

...this is the important part, to me.

That means I have communicated the ideas I wanted to bring to your attention.

Which I am not taking for granted - attention is a limited resource.

>I've had many experts explain stuff to me without doing any of that.

Kudos to them. To each their own.

>on a semi-obscure technology forum

An influential technology forum. And not obscure by far, judging by the traffic it brings to pages linked in either posts or discussions (including my website).

That aside, I simply enjoy writing. And the cool thing about copy-paste technology is that I can re-use this writing in another argument or a publication elsewhere.

To quote a meme: the IBM Model M keyboard goes brrrrrrrrrr.

>you've got some emotions and passion involved. Which is totally fine! Humans aren't meant to be completely devoid of emotion.

Sure, and I did say that. I am passionate about teaching, and I am interested in these discussions.

>>But nobody - including you - is actually holy

>It's a saying, I wasn't being literal.

See, this is a patronizing and a condescending thing to say.

Which also implies you have not actually read what I wrote, because I specifically went over what I believe are examples of "holier-than-thou" in the comment I was responding to.

What I wrote very clearly, beyond shadow of doubt, indicates that I am more than familiar with that saying.

I wrote that sentence that way because it's attention-grabbing, and it appears to have worked.

Sadly, it also appears that you glossed over entirety of the text that preceded it.

So, may I ask you to go back and re-read it, while keeping in mind the extra context I have provided in this comment?

Asking sincerely, because I think it would be great for both of us to bridge the evident communication gap.

I'll be eagerly waiting for your feedback - thank you in advance.

______

¹ https://medium.com/@katerinegeraa/5-tips-for-writing-neurodi...

² https://romankogan.net/adhd

³ https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/hc174z/why_do_peopl...

⁴ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem

⁵ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-economic-and-emotiona...

▲tomrod a day ago | parent [-]

Out of curiosity, do you have a specific goal or outcome in mind in this exchange? I have tried to determine what your and your sparring partner's objectives are, and I admit it is difficult to discern.

▲alterom a day ago | parent [-]

>Out of curiosity, do you have a specific goal or outcome in mind in this exchange? I have tried to determine what your and your sparring partner's objectives are, and I admit it is difficult to discern.

Thank you for asking!

I'm most curious in figuring out ways to bridge the communication gap that is manifesting in this discussion.

The gap is as follows: multiple people have objected to the remark of /user/ninetyninenine, in which they stated that, in their view, willfully mis-grading a paper is a fireable offense for a teacher.

I don't find this opinion problematic or exceptional; and I believe that, if stated in this form, it would not cause a stir.

The way it was written is, in my view, very empathetic. Most people don't consider the livelihood of someone's family when they say "they should get fired for that".

Yet the objections to that comment seem to perceive the opposite — lack of empathy, and went to great length attacking both the opinion and the person who made it.

This reaction to the form of the comment over substance is something that I'm interested in combating.

The conversation with my "sparring partner" in this thread started with a point where me and the person I'm responding to see things differently: they perceived condescension in what I say, and don't appear to see any issue with the "few sentences" of the comment I wrote an "essay" in response to.

Notably, they said they agree with much of the substance of my comment, but find the tone objectionable.

I believe that their perception of my tone can be attributed to the Double Empathy problem¹, and that the same issue underlies the objections to the point user/ninetyninenine made.

I pose the following questions:

1. Is it possible to demonstrate the line between emotional reaction to the form of the comment and its substance — and persuade people to stick to the substance?

2. Can the Double Empathy problem be overcome by explaining how we think and express opinions (and, by that, helping others avoid misinterpreting or misattributing emotions)?

I believe that this conversation helps us all explore these two questions, even if it doesn't yield a conclusive answer to either.

Additionally, I hope this discussion brings attention to neurodivergence in general, and autistic traits in communication in particular, hoping to make people who disagree with our tone hear it differently.

Which is why I'm curious to hear the thoughts of my "sparring partner", as you called them.

I don't see the conversation as a sparring match, or a debate to be won; it's an exchange of ideas where, hopefully, everyone involved leaves with more than they came in with.

Ultimately, that is the goal — in this conversation, as well as all the others I take part in.

Thank you again for asking, glad to answer any other questions!

____

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem

▲buttercraft 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'm most curious in figuring out ways to bridge the communication gap that is manifesting in this discussion.

If that is your goal, you couldn't be doing a worse job of it.

▲npongratz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree. I highly appreciate @alterom's perspective and clear elucidation, and think the discussion has been fantastic.

▲alterom 8 hours ago | parent [-]

>I disagree. I highly appreciate @alterom's perspective and clear elucidation, and think the discussion has been fantastic.

Thank you so much for this comment!

The "specific goal or outcome" then has already been reached :)

▲alterom 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>If that is your goal, you couldn't be doing a worse job of it.

Well this comment of yours doesn't help either.

Genuinely curious if you've read the rest of what I wrote, and have any thoughts (objections? agreeing with anything?) regarding specific things that I said - or you just stopped at that first sentence to write this (content-free) response.

Please let me know.