6 ms·

Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters that will lead to actionabl

Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters that will lead to actionable items for cleaning up the mess? From what I have seen I don't think HN in its current form is the right forum for those discussions. Even scanning this sub-thread prompted by your comment I'm already starting to see that the discussion seems to be devolving. Here is a group of technologists that could in theory spin up another forum with moderation tools and integration with HN to have back and forth between the two forums based on what "flavor" (political or technical) the discussion was going in and all I see is second-guessing and critiquing with no actionable and constructive items in the mix.

macrael 10y ago
idlewords recently organized a meetup to discuss exactly those questions: https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.htm https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.ht...
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  This is great. More of this and less mud slinging on HN might actually move the needle.
  - grzm 10y ago
    For comparison, you can view how these very notes were discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270
    - dkarapetyan 10y ago
      I'd rather not. I'm not interested in HNs opinion on those matters. I don't think HN has much to contribute to political discussions honestly. That is why I recommended a side channel for those discussions. Having those discussions in the real world is even better.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Ah! Gotcha. I parsed your statement as (More of this and less mud slinging) on HN might actually move the needle as opposed to (More of this) and (less mud slinging on HN) might actually move the needle I agree. I would like to figure out a way to encourage civil and constructive discourse on line in the interest of reaching and engaging more people. Offline is very important—probably more important—, as it reinforces the face-to-face social interaction.
        unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >figure out a way to encourage civil and constructive discourse on line in the interest of reaching and engaging more people I've been thinking about this a lot lately, albeit in a slightly different context than pure politics. When you say "encourage civil and constructive discourse", it implies that you wish to engage people who disagree. One conclusion I've reached is that it is best to instead engage like-minded people. The idea of "reaching across" to form consensus or stimulate constructive debate among people who don't agree sounds really good on paper. But, at the end of the day--if you actually want to get anything done--then you don't want to spend your energy convincing people of the rightness of your beliefs. And, looking at this last U.S. election, there seem to be vanishingly few folks for whom facts matter. So much is emotionally-driven that convincing others becomes all the more difficult. It's not impossible, but the ROI just isn't there. Even if you're not looking into doing something, but just want stimulating discussion, it's a trap at virtually any significant scale. It will inevitably devolve into something emotional and non-constructive. It's unfortunate, but it only takes a few trolls to trash an online community.
        grzm 10y ago
        Yeah, I've had thoughts along those lines as well. What draws me back from a more isolationist position is a couple of things: - As online discourse/experience becomes an increasing part of people's lives, the more important it will be to be able to have these types of discussions (and not just pure politics). - People aren't as binary as the US Presidential election or right/left or whatever other labels would have us believe. There are things people disagree on, and if we're only to engage with people that we agree 100% with, we're not going to have very many people to talk to. It's not so much convincing others as it is finding the commonalities we already share and can easily forget when we see things as black and white. Anyway, I'm not asking you to agree with those points. Just wanted to elaborate. And I agree with you on the "few trolls" point. So, having said all that, where do you stand on Political Detox Week? Worth doing?
bmelton 10y ago
> Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters I don't know about 'actionable items', but political conversation isn't any different than other conversations -- civility, the assumption of good faith, and an open mind are more common factors as to whether a discussion is good or bad versus topic. The problem with political discussion isn't that it's political, it's that America (and possibly elsewhere that I can't speak to) has decided that "my side is good, the other side is bad". This leads to conversations that assume bad faith, and are close-minded, which makes those discussions "bad". You can't fix that with a set of rules, but you can enforce the same rules around those discussions -- people being rude, snarky or dismissive would be subject to censure, while people who are being courteous, informative and civil would not. In short, I maintain that the problem with political discussions versus other discussions is that we treat them as different than other discussions. At their best, they can be a productive means of informing others to facts they may not have been aware, or elevating one's opinion from a basic understanding to a more nuanced understanding. But the more special we treat politics, the more the regular rules suffer, and blanket policies banning politics foster this special status in which vitriol becomes normalized, regimented and de rigueur. So long as incivility is normal, the greater our partisan divides will grow.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Don't you think your post rings of false equivalency? How do you discuss in "good faith" ideas like white nationalism?
  - bmelton 10y ago
    How do you discuss in "good faith" ideas like white nationalism? You discuss it the same way you discuss any other idea in good faith: by evaluating the content on its message, not on the presuppositions you might have for its messenger; by evaluating each topic in isolation on its own, and trying to determine whether or not any individual point has merit or not, how much merit it may have, and where it does not have merit, explaining why you consider it meritless; by being open-minded enough to not dismiss individual points because you disagree with the central thesis; by putting forth your best arguments, and letting the stronger argument win the day, unblemished by vitriol; by being civil and courteous to your fellow man because as humans, they're deserving of at least a civil, open minded discussion.

macrael 10y ago

idlewords recently organized a meetup to discuss exactly those questions: https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.htm https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.ht...

dkarapetyan 10y ago
This is great. More of this and less mud slinging on HN might actually move the needle.
- grzm 10y ago
  For comparison, you can view how these very notes were discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270
  - dkarapetyan 10y ago
    I'd rather not. I'm not interested in HNs opinion on those matters. I don't think HN has much to contribute to political discussions honestly. That is why I recommended a side channel for those discussions. Having those discussions in the real world is even better.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Ah! Gotcha. I parsed your statement as (More of this and less mud slinging) on HN might actually move the needle as opposed to (More of this) and (less mud slinging on HN) might actually move the needle I agree. I would like to figure out a way to encourage civil and constructive discourse on line in the interest of reaching and engaging more people. Offline is very important—probably more important—, as it reinforces the face-to-face social interaction.
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >figure out a way to encourage civil and constructive discourse on line in the interest of reaching and engaging more people I've been thinking about this a lot lately, albeit in a slightly different context than pure politics. When you say "encourage civil and constructive discourse", it implies that you wish to engage people who disagree. One conclusion I've reached is that it is best to instead engage like-minded people. The idea of "reaching across" to form consensus or stimulate constructive debate among people who don't agree sounds really good on paper. But, at the end of the day--if you actually want to get anything done--then you don't want to spend your energy convincing people of the rightness of your beliefs. And, looking at this last U.S. election, there seem to be vanishingly few folks for whom facts matter. So much is emotionally-driven that convincing others becomes all the more difficult. It's not impossible, but the ROI just isn't there. Even if you're not looking into doing something, but just want stimulating discussion, it's a trap at virtually any significant scale. It will inevitably devolve into something emotional and non-constructive. It's unfortunate, but it only takes a few trolls to trash an online community.
        grzm 10y ago
        Yeah, I've had thoughts along those lines as well. What draws me back from a more isolationist position is a couple of things: - As online discourse/experience becomes an increasing part of people's lives, the more important it will be to be able to have these types of discussions (and not just pure politics). - People aren't as binary as the US Presidential election or right/left or whatever other labels would have us believe. There are things people disagree on, and if we're only to engage with people that we agree 100% with, we're not going to have very many people to talk to. It's not so much convincing others as it is finding the commonalities we already share and can easily forget when we see things as black and white. Anyway, I'm not asking you to agree with those points. Just wanted to elaborate. And I agree with you on the "few trolls" point. So, having said all that, where do you stand on Political Detox Week? Worth doing?

bmelton 10y ago

> Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters I don't know about 'actionable items', but political conversation isn't any different than other conversations -- civility, the assumption of good faith, and an open mind are more common factors as to whether a discussion is good or bad versus topic. The problem with political discussion isn't that it's political, it's that America (and possibly elsewhere that I can't speak to) has decided that "my side is good, the other side is bad". This leads to conversations that assume bad faith, and are close-minded, which makes those discussions "bad". You can't fix that with a set of rules, but you can enforce the same rules around those discussions -- people being rude, snarky or dismissive would be subject to censure, while people who are being courteous, informative and civil would not. In short, I maintain that the problem with political discussions versus other discussions is that we treat them as different than other discussions. At their best, they can be a productive means of informing others to facts they may not have been aware, or elevating one's opinion from a basic understanding to a more nuanced understanding. But the more special we treat politics, the more the regular rules suffer, and blanket policies banning politics foster this special status in which vitriol becomes normalized, regimented and de rigueur. So long as incivility is normal, the greater our partisan divides will grow.

chillwaves 10y ago
Don't you think your post rings of false equivalency? How do you discuss in "good faith" ideas like white nationalism?
- bmelton 10y ago
  How do you discuss in "good faith" ideas like white nationalism? You discuss it the same way you discuss any other idea in good faith: by evaluating the content on its message, not on the presuppositions you might have for its messenger; by evaluating each topic in isolation on its own, and trying to determine whether or not any individual point has merit or not, how much merit it may have, and where it does not have merit, explaining why you consider it meritless; by being open-minded enough to not dismiss individual points because you disagree with the central thesis; by putting forth your best arguments, and letting the stronger argument win the day, unblemished by vitriol; by being civil and courteous to your fellow man because as humans, they're deserving of at least a civil, open minded discussion.