I really object to that. Alex3917 is one of the most well-informed commenters on here. That he takes unpopular and unconventional positions is cause for admiration, not rude ridicule.

As for the point about yoga, it hardly seems odd to suggest that a system that's been around for thousands of years might retain some connection to its origins.

Hm.

I agree with you about the comment you replied to. That comment is so bad I flagged it. So the idea that anyone would downmod you for calling it out is dispiriting.

But, much as I like 'Alex3917, I downmodded his yoga comment. I thought it was so reductionist that it sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

Well now I feel guilty for communicating in abrasive shortcuts myself.

"Reductionist" is probably fair. Alex can be a bit of a bombthrower, and not always in a helpful way. For me the line is drawn somewhere between http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2932298 (unhelpful because indiscriminate and judgmental - and yes, reductionist. Nobody is a moron.) and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2932421 (provocative but informed). I'm guessing the line draws itself a little differently for you.

Sadly, the interesting question (what if anything is the religious significance of yoga in the modern West?) probably falls in the large category of stuff that is impossible to discuss online. It always appears possible, but immediately degenerates into binary twiddling where everyone takes their own pre-existing bitmask, ANDs it with what they perceive the competing bitmasks to be, and emits signals of "yes/like" and "no/dislike" that vary only in intensity. The informational content of this process is low. It's like addictive food that lacks nutrition.

I have a theory as to why this is. High-value discourse -- in which people experience their overlapping divergences as something other than a binary opposition and come away from the encounter slightly transformed, which is a deeply human and satisfying experience -- requires rapport, and rapport is a somatic phenomenon. It mostly occurs when people are both personally acquainted and physically nearby. Online discussions, which have neither, are therefore inhospitable. We end up with a lot of verbiage that is cognitively sophisticated but emotionally/limbically primitive. I wonder if auxiliary in-person meetups of online communities will continue to grow as a way to mitigate this. In any case we should look for a way to increase the likelihood of rapport. I don't mean to try to bring it about (that would be awful) but to ask what conditions increase the probability of it occurring spontaneously.

(Normally I'd edit this down but I'm late for brunch at my sister's house, so you get the overwrought version!)

We don't write comments like this here.

I am sorry to hear that, but perhaps you could set an example and explain what was so wrong, instead of merely flagging/down-modding.

From my point of view, my comment was of the same tone and direction as the immediate parent. Snarky, insulting and full of (in my opinion - well deserved) ridicule.

(EDIT: I appreciate the fact that any forum (HN) would benefit from keeping snark, insults and stupid fights to a minimum and in that spirit my reply was in the wrong direction. In future, I'll try to cultivate a less confrontational and/or snarky tone and be more patient than I was here.)

Having said that, I am a firm believer in the dictum of "you cannot please everyone, all of the time", but I would love to hear the basis for you taking such strong offense to my comment alone.

Civility is not optional on HN. When you call someone names, you are being uncivil. Stop calling people names.

And, if the entire point of your comment is to inform everyone else on HN that you think another HN user is unworthy of our attention, you should rethink posting the comment at all. Comments of that sort are generally unwelcome.

That is an excellent point indeed and I agree wholeheartedly with it. Civility is essential to productive discussion anywhere. Just because I found Alex3917's comment utterly ignorant and offensive does not justify my response in the same vein. Period.

if the entire point of your comment is to inform everyone else on HN that you think another HN user is unworthy of our attention, you should rethink posting the comment at all

Thank you for putting my feelings into words. I wish I could have just silently down-voted what I found so offensive instead of flaming out and coming across as being uncivil, but then again, that is a privilege not yet afforded to me on HN.

Clearly, a silent down-vote conveys much more than a thoughtless reply here.

What I do find confounding is the pile-up on my comments, instead of any voice raised (or down-votes) to the comment that started it all!

Is the messenger's tone more important than the message to folks on HN?

Yes.

The "message" in this case is a totally pointless and off-topic digression about the liturgical significance of yoga.

The meta-message we are engaged in is "how shall I conduct myself on HN to best support the norms of the community".

Because one hopes you'll be contributing to discussions far more relevant and important than yoga, it's worth taking the time to explain how to better calibrate your tone.

Thanks for clarifying that. I sincerely appreciate your time and attention.

However, I am totally confounded by (what appears to me as) the groupthink downvoting going on even now!

(that too on my comments that have nothing to do with this thread!!)

So how do you (or pg) make sure that silent downvoting is applied justifiably and not just a vindictive or punitive action resulting from superficial disagreement? Or is this a non-issue on HN?

And more importantly, are you aware/concerned that such actions (of maybe a few) may make newcomers (like me) see HN as unfriendly at best and nearly tyrannical at worst.

(Needless to say, I should have been civil to begin with, but now this reply is on wholly another point.)