4 ms·

Don't really see the connection. You sure your comment isn't more likely to send the conversation that way?

hashkb 9y ago
Expect downvotes to bury this. I don't get it either.
virmundi 9y ago
No. His stated reason in the article or leaving is an anti conservatism streak in SV. Intrinsic to them is a belief in self defense and weapons ownership. You can't debate the whole concept of his exodus without name calling and vitriolic attacks lobbed by both sides. In the past month there have been two, at least , posts that became so political that they were flagged. Ironically one was on free speech. I just don't have the stomach for it today. In general I'm not sure there is any good to be had with this kind of material on HN.
- toyg 9y ago
  > I just don't have the stomach for it today. Feeling a bit of shame, possibly?
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Maybe he just takes the rules here seriously, and a big one seems to be avoiding politics and political flame wars. Looking at this thread, it’s degenersting into predictable armed camps. This is the polar opposite of satisfying intellectual curiosity, it’s stultifying and boring and predictable and tiring. It’s this kind of discussion that poisons a site and its community.
    - toyg 9y ago
      "Having the stomach" has nothing to do with "taking the rules seriously". > it’s stultifying and boring and predictable and tiring I agree. Anything becomes boring when repeated enough times, like once a week in this case. That's why I wanted to move on from talking about laws that will never happen, towards trying to understand what a gun advocate feels when this sort of thing happens. It's interesting from a psychological perspective.
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        In a perfect world that discussion might happen, but in the world we live in we get this thread and others like it. I really believe that online is the worst way to discuss these matters, and I think that’s a supportable position based on track record alone.
- striking 9y ago
  No, seriously. I think I align with at least some of your ideals, but that connection doesn't make any sense. There's nothing wrong with the article, either. I think reasonable discussion can be had about it. If you're for free speech, you'll know you can simply not participate in discussions you "don't have the stomach for today" instead of asking moderators to close the post.
  - virmundi 9y ago
    I didn’t ask the mods to kill the post. I asked the community to vote with its upvote and not sanction this on the front page. I mentioned that the mods have killed prior discussions because they devolved into armed camps that just bitched at each other. This is merely politics that focus on a particular man from SV. It doesn’t help the larger community.
- Thriptic 9y ago
  You make a statement decrying the politicization of comments directly after making a sweeping incorrect generalization about conservatives? Owning a firearm is not some prerequisite for being a member of a political party. There are large numbers of conservatives that do not own firearms and do not care about firearms ownership. It may surprise you that there are also large numbers of people who are socially liberal who own firearms, such as myself. None of us are ok with school shootings. I am perfectly willing to have rational conversations about the merits of responsible gun ownership with people who are capable of having that conversation, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand here.
  - virmundi 9y ago
    I am too. I own an AR15. Sad, and looking at the comments was right, that this particular post not going to provide a beneficial discuss on any topic defined as good by the site guidelines. There are comments that say that conservatism needs to be eradicated. Why is that HN appropriate?

Expect downvotes to bury this. I don't get it either.

No. His stated reason in the article or leaving is an anti conservatism streak in SV. Intrinsic to them is a belief in self defense and weapons ownership. You can't debate the whole concept of his exodus without name calling and vitriolic attacks lobbed by both sides. In the past month there have been two, at least , posts that became so political that they were flagged. Ironically one was on free speech. I just don't have the stomach for it today. In general I'm not sure there is any good to be had with this kind of material on HN.

toyg 9y ago
> I just don't have the stomach for it today. Feeling a bit of shame, possibly?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Maybe he just takes the rules here seriously, and a big one seems to be avoiding politics and political flame wars. Looking at this thread, it’s degenersting into predictable armed camps. This is the polar opposite of satisfying intellectual curiosity, it’s stultifying and boring and predictable and tiring. It’s this kind of discussion that poisons a site and its community.
  - toyg 9y ago
    "Having the stomach" has nothing to do with "taking the rules seriously". > it’s stultifying and boring and predictable and tiring I agree. Anything becomes boring when repeated enough times, like once a week in this case. That's why I wanted to move on from talking about laws that will never happen, towards trying to understand what a gun advocate feels when this sort of thing happens. It's interesting from a psychological perspective.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      In a perfect world that discussion might happen, but in the world we live in we get this thread and others like it. I really believe that online is the worst way to discuss these matters, and I think that’s a supportable position based on track record alone.
striking 9y ago
No, seriously. I think I align with at least some of your ideals, but that connection doesn't make any sense. There's nothing wrong with the article, either. I think reasonable discussion can be had about it. If you're for free speech, you'll know you can simply not participate in discussions you "don't have the stomach for today" instead of asking moderators to close the post.
- virmundi 9y ago
  I didn’t ask the mods to kill the post. I asked the community to vote with its upvote and not sanction this on the front page. I mentioned that the mods have killed prior discussions because they devolved into armed camps that just bitched at each other. This is merely politics that focus on a particular man from SV. It doesn’t help the larger community.
Thriptic 9y ago
You make a statement decrying the politicization of comments directly after making a sweeping incorrect generalization about conservatives? Owning a firearm is not some prerequisite for being a member of a political party. There are large numbers of conservatives that do not own firearms and do not care about firearms ownership. It may surprise you that there are also large numbers of people who are socially liberal who own firearms, such as myself. None of us are ok with school shootings. I am perfectly willing to have rational conversations about the merits of responsible gun ownership with people who are capable of having that conversation, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand here.
- virmundi 9y ago
  I am too. I own an AR15. Sad, and looking at the comments was right, that this particular post not going to provide a beneficial discuss on any topic defined as good by the site guidelines. There are comments that say that conservatism needs to be eradicated. Why is that HN appropriate?