4 ms·

Understood. I wonder if you could suggest a better way to phrase this point. Like, is it out of bounds to say that someone's comment here and comments in the

by jlebar 10y ago

Understood. I wonder if you could suggest a better way to phrase this point. Like, is it out of bounds to say that someone's comment here and comments in the past sound to me like Chinese propaganda? I guess that is what I was trying to say (and I grant that I didn't say it well). Sorry for causing a scene.

dang 10y ago
I don't think there's a civil way to say that because it's fundamentally a personal slight for a political reason. In fact it's a kind of name calling, which the site rules don't allow. I do think it's ok for users to remind each other that HN isn't for pure politics. But not to score a political point. Thanks for replying so politely!
- jlebar 10y ago
  While I have your attention, I'd like to register a concern about this bright line it sounds like you're trying to draw. A tactic currently being employed by Trump is to claim that questions of fact or science are actual political questions. For example, his surrogates have said that NASA is "politicizing" climate science [1]. I'm concerned about this expansion of the boundaries of what are considered political questions into things that aren't because it has a chilling effect: Once something is deemed political, there are certain places where we can't talk about it. But for my part, I think a world where a politician can prevent us from having a (civil) discussion about e.g. climate change, or net neutrality, or the implications of tax cuts for the rich, or whatever, on HN merely by declaring it to be "political" is a pretty bad world. Not just because I like talking to smart people about science and technology, but because it prevents us from organizing to become a force for good. The OP's point was, it seemed to me, about the facts of international law and a critique of the media. It certainly was inflamatory (as was my response), but if law and the media are off topic because they're political, well, doesn't it follow that net neutrality, Google/Facebook's responses to fake news, and so on, are also political? Do you want to cut off conversations about those topics too? Maybe there are certain topics you'd want to rule out from HN because they inevitably lead to flamewars. Moreover maybe most or all of those topics are things politicians also disagree about (and thus are "political"). But perhaps the thing that you are against isn't "political" discussions per se, but rather flamewars on touchy subjects. Or, something like that? I am afraid that over the next four years, things we used to think of as factual or scientific questions will be reframed as political questions, on which everyone is entitled to their opinion, and which we can't discuss in civilized places like HN. In fact I think we're already seeing this reframing. Anyway, running an online community is hard, I don't pretend to know how to do that. Good luck, and I'll try to follow the rules, whatever you all decide. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-ear...

by jlebar 10y ago

dang 10y ago

I don't think there's a civil way to say that because it's fundamentally a personal slight for a political reason. In fact it's a kind of name calling, which the site rules don't allow. I do think it's ok for users to remind each other that HN isn't for pure politics. But not to score a political point. Thanks for replying so politely!

jlebar 10y ago
While I have your attention, I'd like to register a concern about this bright line it sounds like you're trying to draw. A tactic currently being employed by Trump is to claim that questions of fact or science are actual political questions. For example, his surrogates have said that NASA is "politicizing" climate science [1]. I'm concerned about this expansion of the boundaries of what are considered political questions into things that aren't because it has a chilling effect: Once something is deemed political, there are certain places where we can't talk about it. But for my part, I think a world where a politician can prevent us from having a (civil) discussion about e.g. climate change, or net neutrality, or the implications of tax cuts for the rich, or whatever, on HN merely by declaring it to be "political" is a pretty bad world. Not just because I like talking to smart people about science and technology, but because it prevents us from organizing to become a force for good. The OP's point was, it seemed to me, about the facts of international law and a critique of the media. It certainly was inflamatory (as was my response), but if law and the media are off topic because they're political, well, doesn't it follow that net neutrality, Google/Facebook's responses to fake news, and so on, are also political? Do you want to cut off conversations about those topics too? Maybe there are certain topics you'd want to rule out from HN because they inevitably lead to flamewars. Moreover maybe most or all of those topics are things politicians also disagree about (and thus are "political"). But perhaps the thing that you are against isn't "political" discussions per se, but rather flamewars on touchy subjects. Or, something like that? I am afraid that over the next four years, things we used to think of as factual or scientific questions will be reframed as political questions, on which everyone is entitled to their opinion, and which we can't discuss in civilized places like HN. In fact I think we're already seeing this reframing. Anyway, running an online community is hard, I don't pretend to know how to do that. Good luck, and I'll try to follow the rules, whatever you all decide. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-ear...