4 ms·

As someone whose views don't align with a good chunk of HN readers (or don't align, period), I've grown to love reading about differing ideas through the eyes o

As someone whose views don't align with a good chunk of HN readers (or don't align, period), I've grown to love reading about differing ideas through the eyes of others computing/tech enthusiasts. There's common ground to start from and most importantly, even if it turns out to be a viewpoint that deeply goes against my values I can still respect this fellow human because of their tech expertise. I have to admit, it really irked me at first when I came here. How can all these people that like the same things as me, have ideas that are so ... "wrong?!" (just kidding, honest :) ) But then I learned to listen and realize that these opinions will be here whether I engage them or not. Of course, I see subthreads that aren't very "objective in the way I want them to be". But I don't share your experience with downvotes. I try to refrain from trying to convince the person I'm directly replying to if their view is directly opposed to mine, that never works any way. I just state my own personal position and how it reflects. Sure I get the occasional downvote but that's almost always when I've let myself be confrontational about it. Also, there's a big difference between providing a link to some facts that a person might not know, and a very opinionated link (that may also have facts and numbers) that is arguing your point. So yeah, while I support the experiment (it'll be interesting to see), I really hope they don't extend this to forever, but just occasionally after particularly turbulent US elections. Finally: > fair treatment to minority opinions Come on what does that even mean? I don't know what your opinions are. You don't know what mine are (you can read my comment history but good luck). I have no idea what "fair treatment to minority opinions" should even mean. My opinions are minority opinions too (I'll change them if you don't believe me), but I know this; People that complain their opinions aren't getting fair treatment are very rarely worth listening to, regardless of position. I prefer a better signal-to-butthurt ratio.

chrissnell 10y ago
> Come on what does that even mean? > People that complain their opinions aren't getting fair treatment are very rarely worth listening to, regardless of position. I prefer a better signal-to-butthurt ratio. Downvoted comments are subject to being greyed out here, which is a stigma. Yes, it happens. The downvote in a political story has such a different meaning than downvotes in other stories. I feel like people use them as an agree/disagree vote in political threads, whereas they serve as an informed/uninformed vote normally.
- ritchiea 10y ago
  So you're saying it's difficult for you as a white male (at least according to your linked social media) to deal with the issues that you encounter related to grayed out HN comments about the president-elect? The same president elect who goes on TV and and threatens to ban Muslims from entering the US based on their religion. But you are really worried about the grayed out HN comments and the stigma they give you in this community? This is exactly why people are compelled to speak up politically in every space they can. You are not affected by the policies other people are afraid of and you feel slightly inconvenienced by talk of them and want talk swept under the rug. Whereas the other side says "we cannot sweep this under the rug because of how important it is to our well being."
  - ohpuhleeeze 10y ago
    > and want talk swept under the rug. Did you even read his comment? He is complaining about his own comments being downvoted and going gray/disappearing altogether. In other words, he doesn't want talk swept under the rug. > Whereas the other side says "we cannot sweep this under the rug because of how important it is to our well being." Is that why they downvote it, effectively sweeping it under the rug? And if they can't downvote it, is that why they try to get that user banned on Twitter? Or in real life shout them down and call them racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/insert-buzzword-here to try and censor any opposing viewpoints?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > I feel like people use them as an agree/disagree vote in political threads, whereas they serve as an informed/uninformed vote normally. That's the rub: political disagreements tend to go beyond facts and into the realm of values, at which point it's no longer a matter of informedness. This phase change in the debate can be hard to detect, as even the debaters might not realize they are no longer arguing from facts (since their deeply held values may 'feel like facts'), but IMO it's the reason political discussions tend to decay in quality at a certain point, because one side is no longer honoring the previous terms of the debate, knowingly or not. For what it's worth, I think political debates on HN are worth having and can be very productive, because my subjective sense of the HN population is that a higher percentage of us are open to reevaluating our beliefs (and potentially our values) in the face of new information than the human population at large.
atmosx 10y ago
You remind me an Aristotle quote: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. :-)
- grzm 10y ago
  That's a great quote! Thanks for sharing! That and the oft-attributed-to-Voltaire “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”, though I temper the latter with a wholesome peppering of civility.
Chris2048 10y ago
> People that complain their opinions aren't getting fair treatment are very rarely worth listening to I feel this opinion falls into that category
- tripzilch 10y ago
  That's a bit of a confusing, almost paradoxical-seeming statement :) I don't believe I complained my opinions are getting fair treatment. In fact, they almost always seem to get fair treatment. Even when they're ignored or downvoted, really, if the majority of HN-users are anything, it's an uncanny valley of faceless reasonableness :p Unless you mean something different, maybe the line could have used some qualifiers. So it's not the opinions themselves that aren't worth listening to, to be clear. It's just that given two people of the same position, the one that's not complaining their opinions aren't getting fair treatment is usually one that can argue their position a lot more clearly and therefore is just generally more worth listening to. Although that's the less-accurate positive version of that preference of mine. In my personal experience, the negative version is almost always on point.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I meant the category of "not worth listening to" > given two people of the same position, the one that's not complaining their opinions aren't getting fair treatment is usually one that can argue their position a lot more clearly and therefore is just generally more worth listening to You didn't say "more" or "less" worth listening to, you said "not"

chrissnell 10y ago

> Come on what does that even mean? > People that complain their opinions aren't getting fair treatment are very rarely worth listening to, regardless of position. I prefer a better signal-to-butthurt ratio. Downvoted comments are subject to being greyed out here, which is a stigma. Yes, it happens. The downvote in a political story has such a different meaning than downvotes in other stories. I feel like people use them as an agree/disagree vote in political threads, whereas they serve as an informed/uninformed vote normally.

ritchiea 10y ago
So you're saying it's difficult for you as a white male (at least according to your linked social media) to deal with the issues that you encounter related to grayed out HN comments about the president-elect? The same president elect who goes on TV and and threatens to ban Muslims from entering the US based on their religion. But you are really worried about the grayed out HN comments and the stigma they give you in this community? This is exactly why people are compelled to speak up politically in every space they can. You are not affected by the policies other people are afraid of and you feel slightly inconvenienced by talk of them and want talk swept under the rug. Whereas the other side says "we cannot sweep this under the rug because of how important it is to our well being."
- ohpuhleeeze 10y ago
  > and want talk swept under the rug. Did you even read his comment? He is complaining about his own comments being downvoted and going gray/disappearing altogether. In other words, he doesn't want talk swept under the rug. > Whereas the other side says "we cannot sweep this under the rug because of how important it is to our well being." Is that why they downvote it, effectively sweeping it under the rug? And if they can't downvote it, is that why they try to get that user banned on Twitter? Or in real life shout them down and call them racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/insert-buzzword-here to try and censor any opposing viewpoints?
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> I feel like people use them as an agree/disagree vote in political threads, whereas they serve as an informed/uninformed vote normally. That's the rub: political disagreements tend to go beyond facts and into the realm of values, at which point it's no longer a matter of informedness. This phase change in the debate can be hard to detect, as even the debaters might not realize they are no longer arguing from facts (since their deeply held values may 'feel like facts'), but IMO it's the reason political discussions tend to decay in quality at a certain point, because one side is no longer honoring the previous terms of the debate, knowingly or not. For what it's worth, I think political debates on HN are worth having and can be very productive, because my subjective sense of the HN population is that a higher percentage of us are open to reevaluating our beliefs (and potentially our values) in the face of new information than the human population at large.

atmosx 10y ago

You remind me an Aristotle quote: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. :-)

grzm 10y ago
That's a great quote! Thanks for sharing! That and the oft-attributed-to-Voltaire “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”, though I temper the latter with a wholesome peppering of civility.

Chris2048 10y ago

> People that complain their opinions aren't getting fair treatment are very rarely worth listening to I feel this opinion falls into that category

tripzilch 10y ago
That's a bit of a confusing, almost paradoxical-seeming statement :) I don't believe I complained my opinions are getting fair treatment. In fact, they almost always seem to get fair treatment. Even when they're ignored or downvoted, really, if the majority of HN-users are anything, it's an uncanny valley of faceless reasonableness :p Unless you mean something different, maybe the line could have used some qualifiers. So it's not the opinions themselves that aren't worth listening to, to be clear. It's just that given two people of the same position, the one that's not complaining their opinions aren't getting fair treatment is usually one that can argue their position a lot more clearly and therefore is just generally more worth listening to. Although that's the less-accurate positive version of that preference of mine. In my personal experience, the negative version is almost always on point.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I meant the category of "not worth listening to" > given two people of the same position, the one that's not complaining their opinions aren't getting fair treatment is usually one that can argue their position a lot more clearly and therefore is just generally more worth listening to You didn't say "more" or "less" worth listening to, you said "not"