3 ms·

I don't disagree that the comment is probably against the rules. I just believe the rules tend to stifle people from expressing how they truly feel about topic

I don't disagree that the comment is probably against the rules. I just believe the rules tend to stifle people from expressing how they truly feel about topics, and are therefore information limiting and generally a net loss. It's a fine line. Some people's feelings are toxic all the time and wrong-headed and truly add nothing of value. Other people, when they have a negative emotional reaction there is probably a lot of accumulated wisdom behind it and you should really listen instead of censoring or rambling on about civility. Very subjective though. Also, in my opinion, the constant suppression of any negative speech is exactly what gets someone like Trump elected. "Finally, someone on TV is saying what I FEEL and no one can stop him!"

chaostheory 9y ago
To stay on point, my argument is that the rules are clear and they make sense. There are emotional comments on HN that are fine. However they are different. The particular comment we're referring is toxic and adds nothing to the actual discussion; there's no wisdom to calling someone a 'baby'. The only thing it promotes is a flame war since it personally insults someone. It shuts down discussion because it needlessly attempts to piss off someone. There were plenty of other comments that were both critical, insightful, and civil.