5 ms·

You heartily wish cancer to Trump supporters? You do understand you are the bigoted one. All people of walks of life supported Trump lgbt being one group of t

by 551199 10y ago

You heartily wish cancer to Trump supporters? You do understand you are the bigoted one. All people of walks of life supported Trump lgbt being one group of them.

dang 10y ago
You've been using HN exclusively to post on political controversies, and doing it a lot. That's not what this site is for. We rate limit accounts that do this and eventually ban them if they ignore our requests to use the site as intended. Please use the site as intended: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- 551199 10y ago
  The reason I've posted lately is to show the Trump supporter side. Is it really a controversy to point stuff out that is obvious but not in the echo chamber? The dirt we get for the sole reason dnc/media has created a certain narrative for Trump. Wishing cancer, calling people racist, sexist or what have you should not be acceptable. For example: This whole thread was about how Trump is against LGBT’s while in reality he’s been advocate for them from the 80’s and its been a big part of his campaign. I’m sure over time people understand what this election really was about. In the meantime is it really necessary to silence the other side of the voice?
  - dang 10y ago
    Everybody always feels that their side is the underprivileged one while the other is the echo chamber. Everybody feels that their side is the one being silenced and that the mods are against them and supporting the other side. So statements like that don't add any information, just rhetorical energy, which we could use less of. HN is not a place for political battle. People who use it primarily that way are violating the spirit of the site. We don't say politics are off topic completely, but pure politics goes against what the site stands for, which is intellectual curiosity. Ideological battle and intellectual curiosity have next to nothing in common, or maybe just flat-out nothing. When I said you've been violating the spirit of this site, it's because of the second paragraph above. The spirit of intellectual curiosity creates a light and appealing space that attracts high-quality participants. It's not surprising that political battlers would see that space as optimal territory and try to move in [1]. But the clear result of doing this is trashing the space, just as any invading army will trash the space it invades. It's our duty to prevent that from happening, regardless of which army. 1. Of course some of these political battlers and high-quality participants are the same people, in different contexts. That's why we don't ban people for posting occasional political comments, but do ban them if they only use the site this way.
    - 551199 10y ago
      Let me ask you this: Why were people so shocked here that Trump won? Could echo chamber sentiment play a part? Trump win was clear for lot of people who did some research instead of outsourcing thinking to FOX/CNN/MSNBC/NYTIMES. Considering common sentiment here is exact DNC/media has created ’Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic’. 'Trump is x' when in reality he is the opposite its clear some voices aren’t heard. One would think it would be more fruitful for sites like HN to know the other side of things.
      - dang 10y ago
        The first error is here: > Why were people so shocked here Nearly every general claim about HN is based on the kind of sample bias I described above (edit: oops, I meant at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932296). People with strong beliefs convince themselves that "HN" is against their view, but this is an imaginary HN that they're projecting onto the real one. The truth is that on most questions where society is divided, HN is also divided, with plenty of users and comments on both sides. Even on the rare issue where HN skews strongly one way, e.g. Snowden, plenty of people still argue the other side. This dynamic has some counterintuitive consequences. One is that the more neutral we are in moderating HN, the more biased we appear, to people who feel strongly about an issue. Another is that the more diverse HN is in terms of conflicting opinions, the less diverse people (again, people who feel strongly) actually think it is. I wrote about this in a bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12000847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12000847. (All this is beside the more important point I've been trying to make to you about violating the spirit of this site. I'll assume you've grokked that by now.)
        551199 10y ago
        > Nearly every general claim about HN is based on the kind of sample bias I described above By reading multiple threads from start to bottom it's quite clear people don't 'get' why he won. And I don't blame them if they been only informed by MSM. > It's more exciting to feel oneself to be the underdog, surrounded by enemies, than to spend a lot of time looking at data Wikileaks: Clinton campaign colluding with all major news orgs. Polls were a sham questions ranging from stuff like would you rather vote for ‘Trump or Obama’ to heavy weighting issues. Debate questions given beforehand to Clinton. GOP going against Trump, all nasty hoax stories ranging to raping 13 year girl. You can even find the exact ‘Trump is crazy racist playbook narrative’. Look it doesn’t matter if people are against or support Trump, but it’s quite concerning to see people labeled as ‘racist, sexist etc’ without any merit just because supporting Trump. Or accusing Trump something like his hatred against gays in hn when the truth is exact opposite. After Trump has been elected people have been reporting false sexual assault stories (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-student-assaulted-headscarf.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-student-...). Influential people in social media with millions of followers saying that now gays are going to be killed because of Trump. Have a look at social media people against Trump are acting extremely vile. Hopefully that doesn't lead to violence. Media and DNC has created this narrative and they should be the ones to undue it. Instead Trump supporters have to do their dirty work and silencing us is not going to make it better.

by 551199 10y ago

You heartily wish cancer to Trump supporters? You do understand you are the bigoted one. All people of walks of life supported Trump lgbt being one group of them.

dang 10y ago

You've been using HN exclusively to post on political controversies, and doing it a lot. That's not what this site is for. We rate limit accounts that do this and eventually ban them if they ignore our requests to use the site as intended. Please use the site as intended: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

551199 10y ago
The reason I've posted lately is to show the Trump supporter side. Is it really a controversy to point stuff out that is obvious but not in the echo chamber? The dirt we get for the sole reason dnc/media has created a certain narrative for Trump. Wishing cancer, calling people racist, sexist or what have you should not be acceptable. For example: This whole thread was about how Trump is against LGBT’s while in reality he’s been advocate for them from the 80’s and its been a big part of his campaign. I’m sure over time people understand what this election really was about. In the meantime is it really necessary to silence the other side of the voice?
- dang 10y ago
  Everybody always feels that their side is the underprivileged one while the other is the echo chamber. Everybody feels that their side is the one being silenced and that the mods are against them and supporting the other side. So statements like that don't add any information, just rhetorical energy, which we could use less of. HN is not a place for political battle. People who use it primarily that way are violating the spirit of the site. We don't say politics are off topic completely, but pure politics goes against what the site stands for, which is intellectual curiosity. Ideological battle and intellectual curiosity have next to nothing in common, or maybe just flat-out nothing. When I said you've been violating the spirit of this site, it's because of the second paragraph above. The spirit of intellectual curiosity creates a light and appealing space that attracts high-quality participants. It's not surprising that political battlers would see that space as optimal territory and try to move in [1]. But the clear result of doing this is trashing the space, just as any invading army will trash the space it invades. It's our duty to prevent that from happening, regardless of which army. 1. Of course some of these political battlers and high-quality participants are the same people, in different contexts. That's why we don't ban people for posting occasional political comments, but do ban them if they only use the site this way.
  - 551199 10y ago
    Let me ask you this: Why were people so shocked here that Trump won? Could echo chamber sentiment play a part? Trump win was clear for lot of people who did some research instead of outsourcing thinking to FOX/CNN/MSNBC/NYTIMES. Considering common sentiment here is exact DNC/media has created ’Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic’. 'Trump is x' when in reality he is the opposite its clear some voices aren’t heard. One would think it would be more fruitful for sites like HN to know the other side of things.
    - dang 10y ago
      The first error is here: > Why were people so shocked here Nearly every general claim about HN is based on the kind of sample bias I described above (edit: oops, I meant at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932296). People with strong beliefs convince themselves that "HN" is against their view, but this is an imaginary HN that they're projecting onto the real one. The truth is that on most questions where society is divided, HN is also divided, with plenty of users and comments on both sides. Even on the rare issue where HN skews strongly one way, e.g. Snowden, plenty of people still argue the other side. This dynamic has some counterintuitive consequences. One is that the more neutral we are in moderating HN, the more biased we appear, to people who feel strongly about an issue. Another is that the more diverse HN is in terms of conflicting opinions, the less diverse people (again, people who feel strongly) actually think it is. I wrote about this in a bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12000847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12000847. (All this is beside the more important point I've been trying to make to you about violating the spirit of this site. I'll assume you've grokked that by now.)
      - 551199 10y ago
        > Nearly every general claim about HN is based on the kind of sample bias I described above By reading multiple threads from start to bottom it's quite clear people don't 'get' why he won. And I don't blame them if they been only informed by MSM. > It's more exciting to feel oneself to be the underdog, surrounded by enemies, than to spend a lot of time looking at data Wikileaks: Clinton campaign colluding with all major news orgs. Polls were a sham questions ranging from stuff like would you rather vote for ‘Trump or Obama’ to heavy weighting issues. Debate questions given beforehand to Clinton. GOP going against Trump, all nasty hoax stories ranging to raping 13 year girl. You can even find the exact ‘Trump is crazy racist playbook narrative’. Look it doesn’t matter if people are against or support Trump, but it’s quite concerning to see people labeled as ‘racist, sexist etc’ without any merit just because supporting Trump. Or accusing Trump something like his hatred against gays in hn when the truth is exact opposite. After Trump has been elected people have been reporting false sexual assault stories (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-student-assaulted-headscarf.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-student-...). Influential people in social media with millions of followers saying that now gays are going to be killed because of Trump. Have a look at social media people against Trump are acting extremely vile. Hopefully that doesn't lead to violence. Media and DNC has created this narrative and they should be the ones to undue it. Instead Trump supporters have to do their dirty work and silencing us is not going to make it better.