“Interesting” is not a property of the discussion in itself but created between the reader and the discussion. Maybe the reader is also culpable for the perceived dimensionality reduction?
To me heavy disagreement usually makes more interesting of a discussion than mere conformity, and HN is one of the few places where it can take place without bans, kicks, brigades.
I can stand all but the arrogance of projecting one’s perspective as a conclusive “quality” to the entire discussion. It is an insult to the efforts of the well meaning commentators, it is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and their capability on deciding what is relevant or interesting to them on their own.
At the risk of being repetitive, “finding common ground” cannot be a one sided action, else it is seeking mere conformity. And the reader is a side to this; if the reader is stuck at a perspectival narrowing, they will feel like the argument is not working towards common understanding with them while it might as well be their narrowness preventing them from being receptive.
Also common ground is not a geometric mean; eg in an imaged conversation for and against capital punishment, common ground is not killing the convict just a little. It is about showing the work that lead to people to their own conclusions, which usually tend to have more in common than people expect.
Not being conclusive is OK for such discussions, and people have a right to defend their positions, as long as it doesn’t degrade to name calling and other conversation killers.
The most dominant name calling in this thread right now is from people that condemn all participants for not being sophisticated or conciliatory enough. That is the performative contradiction I’ve been talking about.
To me heavy disagreement usually makes more interesting of a discussion than mere conformity, and HN is one of the few places where it can take place without bans, kicks, brigades.
I can stand all but the arrogance of projecting one’s perspective as a conclusive “quality” to the entire discussion. It is an insult to the efforts of the well meaning commentators, it is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and their capability on deciding what is relevant or interesting to them on their own.