You have to understand that some people argue from a moral position and do not need "narratives" or "metrics".

i think a lot of people have forgotten this. most tech people are so metrics pilled that it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer

▲

karahime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Who said metrics? You are arguing against something you've made up so that you can grandstand. Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty is not a "spiritually rich" act.

▲

a761 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50108489

You are a good AI, but maybe you should update your context window.

▲

karahime 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This website has become wildly cruel.

	▲	volkk an hour ago \| parent [-]
		FYI my response did include you originally, but i wasn't implying that you are spiritually defunct, just that thinking in terms of metrics _is_. Re-reading your comment I realize you were using the word metric in a different way anyway. But obviously i have no idea who you are and regardless of your particulars, the point i was making was broad sweeping based on my many years of experience in tech. Lots of people are spiritually dead, and I do think that a lot are so AI pilled that they're willing to trade in their humanity and entire brain if they could

▲

latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Who said metrics?

Their parent comment did¹, as did the parent to that one² (i.e. you, who used the word “metric” twice), which is the top of the chain. So, in essence, everyone in the immediate conversation “said metrics”.

> Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty

That’s not what they did at all. You’re choosing that interpretation, you can choose a kinder one.

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50108576

² https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50108489

▲

karahime 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Fine, I said metric in the original comment when I could have said basis or notion or perspective. But I don't think my interpretation is the unkind one, here. They wrote "it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer", and I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of being empty.

	▲	latexr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of But you initially said: > Implying that anyone who disagrees with you That’s what I think is incorrect about your interpretation. “The majority of people in this field” and “anyone who disagrees with me” are wildly different statements. When they say “most tech people”, that could even include themselves¹ or close friends and family². Because crucially, none of us is one single thing, and we’re not a single thing all the time. Like, you can have an uncle who you feel is unimaginative and old-fashioned and crude but that you still believe tries to be a good person even if you disagree with them on how to go about it. That’s what I mean when I say you could choose a kinder interpretation. And hey, I’m not perfect either, I have had my fair share of misinterpretations. But that’s exactly why I’m saying this to you right now, in the end we should help each other to come back to kindness. Maybe the person you responded to was trying to be rude, but I think there’s enough leeway to believe they were not, and that you can be happier if you take the comment in the best way. Have a nice weekend. Genuinely. ¹ Sure, unlikely, though not impossible. ² Not that unlikely anymore.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

233mhz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sometime it's like talking to a wall...

> I don't like vanilla ice cream

> Ok well prove it then!

▲

karahime 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Writing a moral into a narrative doesn't make it narrativeless. They're still saying something, and if what they're saying is wrong and missing the point, then just calling it a moral position doesn't make what's being argued any more real or the ideas any better.