4 ms·

> What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of l

> What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed. You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with. It doesn't make hacker news "better" to have only one viewpoint, by shaming all others because they don't match the mob approved groupthink of what right and wrong is.

mikeash 9y ago
No, I'm saying that the offense of using strong language when describing something bad is completely trivial when compared to using nice language to lie about both past and present in service of the counterargument. Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language. We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
- topmonk 9y ago
  How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe. Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you. > We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'" We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    How do you know anything? How do I know that you're talking about my comment and not, say, explaining the lifecycle of the sabre-toothed tiger? At some point you have to rely on individual understanding of language. Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
    - topmonk 9y ago
      I was talking about you being able to peer into someone's head and then label them mischievous and a liar. That's different from denying understanding of the semantics of language and how they apply to the real world. > Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible. If I express a viewpoint that has been proven wrong thousands of times, such as "Hitler did nothing wrong", I'm not seeking discussion, but rather seeking to annoy. That's obvious and not being civil. If I hide insults in my argument, that's also not being civil. However, if I express a controversial but novel opinion on a subject that is not closed, it shouldn't automatically be lumped into being the same as the first two categories.

mikeash 9y ago

No, I'm saying that the offense of using strong language when describing something bad is completely trivial when compared to using nice language to lie about both past and present in service of the counterargument. Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language. We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"

topmonk 9y ago
How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe. Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you. > We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'" We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
- mikeash 9y ago
  How do you know anything? How do I know that you're talking about my comment and not, say, explaining the lifecycle of the sabre-toothed tiger? At some point you have to rely on individual understanding of language. Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
  - topmonk 9y ago
    I was talking about you being able to peer into someone's head and then label them mischievous and a liar. That's different from denying understanding of the semantics of language and how they apply to the real world. > Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible. If I express a viewpoint that has been proven wrong thousands of times, such as "Hitler did nothing wrong", I'm not seeking discussion, but rather seeking to annoy. That's obvious and not being civil. If I hide insults in my argument, that's also not being civil. However, if I express a controversial but novel opinion on a subject that is not closed, it shouldn't automatically be lumped into being the same as the first two categories.