3 ms·

Leave is mostly the elder, remain is mostly the younger. And the younger will, albeit they voted remain, confront the effects for longer than the elder. Thus

by gkya 10y ago

Leave is mostly the elder, remain is mostly the younger. And the younger will, albeit they voted remain, confront the effects for longer than the elder. Thus they have the right to react. Don't boil everything to denigration and human rights, if everybody hides behind the shield of some identity no discussion will happen. Keep your american -isms to yourselves, people need to debate, discuss and even fight and define the future of their people. I don't like watching the american politically-correctism and identity crises being exported overseas. This sort of protectism creates a deaf and blind democracy that is also very prone to logical errors in its thinking and decision making, and renders actual social problems irresolvable.

crusso 10y ago
Noting that different age groups tended to vote differently is not the problem. Nor is trying to understand why they voted how they did. It's the denigration of the people who were older. This article called them "grumpy", but I've seen worse. I've seen lots of other comments and articles that not only resorted to name-calling, but also tried to use the fact that people were older as prima facie evidence that their reasoning was bad.
- gkya 10y ago
  The elder are not silenced, they can defend themselves. > but also tried to use the fact that people were older as prima facie evidence that their reasoning was bad. Like it or not (I don't like it either), but that may be an argument. Calling that denigration is the easy path out, but it leads nowhere. What has to be done is to refute it, however vulgar that might be. We're dealing with the results of a vulgar, uneducated, haphazard decision anyways.
  - crusso 10y ago
    The elder are not silenced, they can defend themselves. You could use that as an excuse for any sort of attack. In general, and especially here on HN, ad hominem is frowned upon.
dang 10y ago
> Keep your american -isms to yourselves There seems to me something profoundly contradictory about this slur, but in any case it's a nasty breach of civility and you can't post like that here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11981009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11981009 and marked it off-topic.
- gkya 10y ago
  What I refer to is a certain, observable feature of the american culture. The only breach of civility here is you calling me uncivil. But this sort of moderation is something I've seen often on the HN, so there's nothing to say.
  - dang 10y ago
    You didn't just 'refer' to an 'observable'. You combined three pejoratives in as many words ('your american isms') with a boorish gesture ('keep your X to yourselves'). It's common for people to behave rudely like this and, when asked not to, pretend they were merely stating neutral facts. Perhaps you genuinely think so; in that case the answer is to develop a more accurate sense of what the HN guidelines mean when they talk about being civil. If you continue to break them as you repeatedly have in the past, we're going to conclude that you don't want to use HN as intended and ban your account. It's not hard to learn what the standard here is and keep to it. Many users have had to do so (myself included). The only question is whether one wants to.
    - gkya 10y ago
      I am sorry, I disagree. I don't see any pejoratives there, and in fact you're the one using them: nasty and boorish are the words you used and you implied that I'm uneducated, uncivil, and a liar. Do whatever you want with my account.
      - dang 10y ago
        I did use the words 'nasty' and 'boorish' and probably could have avoided them. I certainly did not mean to imply anything about you personally, nor do I think those things. Why did I call those three words pejoratives? Because that's how they work in the context where you used them: "isms" is obviously a pejorative, "American" bound to it becomes a national slight, and "your" a personal one. Perhaps you didn't intend them that way, but I assure you that for many readers they would acquire that connotation en route. I don't have any desire to ban you, but I do wish you'd take on good faith what I'm trying to explain about how HN conversations are supposed to operate. It all comes from long hard experience trying to prevent an internet forum from degenerating. You clearly have some interesting things to say, so if you'd join us in the work of erring on the side of civility, HN would be better.

by gkya 10y ago

crusso 10y ago

Noting that different age groups tended to vote differently is not the problem. Nor is trying to understand why they voted how they did. It's the denigration of the people who were older. This article called them "grumpy", but I've seen worse. I've seen lots of other comments and articles that not only resorted to name-calling, but also tried to use the fact that people were older as prima facie evidence that their reasoning was bad.

gkya 10y ago
The elder are not silenced, they can defend themselves. > but also tried to use the fact that people were older as prima facie evidence that their reasoning was bad. Like it or not (I don't like it either), but that may be an argument. Calling that denigration is the easy path out, but it leads nowhere. What has to be done is to refute it, however vulgar that might be. We're dealing with the results of a vulgar, uneducated, haphazard decision anyways.
- crusso 10y ago
  The elder are not silenced, they can defend themselves. You could use that as an excuse for any sort of attack. In general, and especially here on HN, ad hominem is frowned upon.

dang 10y ago

> Keep your american -isms to yourselves There seems to me something profoundly contradictory about this slur, but in any case it's a nasty breach of civility and you can't post like that here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11981009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11981009 and marked it off-topic.

gkya 10y ago
What I refer to is a certain, observable feature of the american culture. The only breach of civility here is you calling me uncivil. But this sort of moderation is something I've seen often on the HN, so there's nothing to say.
- dang 10y ago
  You didn't just 'refer' to an 'observable'. You combined three pejoratives in as many words ('your american isms') with a boorish gesture ('keep your X to yourselves'). It's common for people to behave rudely like this and, when asked not to, pretend they were merely stating neutral facts. Perhaps you genuinely think so; in that case the answer is to develop a more accurate sense of what the HN guidelines mean when they talk about being civil. If you continue to break them as you repeatedly have in the past, we're going to conclude that you don't want to use HN as intended and ban your account. It's not hard to learn what the standard here is and keep to it. Many users have had to do so (myself included). The only question is whether one wants to.
  - gkya 10y ago
    I am sorry, I disagree. I don't see any pejoratives there, and in fact you're the one using them: nasty and boorish are the words you used and you implied that I'm uneducated, uncivil, and a liar. Do whatever you want with my account.
    - dang 10y ago
      I did use the words 'nasty' and 'boorish' and probably could have avoided them. I certainly did not mean to imply anything about you personally, nor do I think those things. Why did I call those three words pejoratives? Because that's how they work in the context where you used them: "isms" is obviously a pejorative, "American" bound to it becomes a national slight, and "your" a personal one. Perhaps you didn't intend them that way, but I assure you that for many readers they would acquire that connotation en route. I don't have any desire to ban you, but I do wish you'd take on good faith what I'm trying to explain about how HN conversations are supposed to operate. It all comes from long hard experience trying to prevent an internet forum from degenerating. You clearly have some interesting things to say, so if you'd join us in the work of erring on the side of civility, HN would be better.