Thus my caveat of "among political types". In a good faith conversation it doesn't matter (and presumably staying silent and staring down your conversation partner happens less often generally). But as the other reply mentioned, there are lots of people - not friends, I've encountered it at work and online- that are basically trying to get you to talk more so they can trap you. The real trick is to recognize when it's happening with minimal false positives so you don't just look like a defensive jerk (been there also)
> Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?
I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded).
This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."
That seems to set up every conversation to fail as people assume past each other rather than double check their interpretation. Good example: the other repliers who assumed ill intent.
Well, I think it's incontrovertible that some people will engage in bad faith conversations with the intent to only further their own agendas.
Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly.
What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it."
In keeping with HN guidelines, I read their comment in the most fair way I could and assumed they weren't one of those "apolitical types" who's oblivious to the politics around them unless someone points it out and sneers at people who do.
I come here because even at its worst, HN is usually capable of hosting conversations that would otherwise devolve to accusations and namecalling between people who could have a conversation without accusations and namecalling.
This subthread is an example of HN at its worst. Not one of the four people who replied are the person I actually asked, and only one of you tried to make a good comment. (not you)
