2 ms·

It's cute that you think that the purging the "modern equivalent of the library" is "not getting to have reruns on network television". I'm going to go out on

It's cute that you think that the purging the "modern equivalent of the library" is "not getting to have reruns on network television". I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "modern equivalent of the library" is, well, the library. A quick check reveals that it is still possible to find The Cosby Show at most libraries of record.

dang 8y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- linza 8y ago
  Is this really necessary? The exchange seems quite civil. What exactly in the GP gave offense that warrants pointing it out? HN seems like a generally civil place. Comments like these make it seem more uncivil, just like police patrolling "bad" neighborhoods more frequently.
  - Lewton 8y ago
    We can’t tell whether the posts have been edited
    - kstenerud 8y ago
      They haven't.
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      Then dang could have specified exactly which statement transgressed the rules.
      - dang 8y ago
        "It's cute that you think [dumb thing]." Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        cortic 8y ago
        what is 'snarky' about 'cute'? I mean its not a very good rule, the general definition [snide and sharply critical.] could apply to most comments; but what specifically is you objection with 'cute', seems it could be taken as a compliment. And fyi- summarizing this persons quote as 'dumb thing' could be construed as snide and sharply critical.
        dang 8y ago
        It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Mostly there's a clear distinction between comments that contain that toxin and those that don't. That's why it's a good rule for HN. "Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope to use positive language in a demeaning way, because it makes a comment nastier when you do that. Another example is "I love how you", which is used about as often to attack someone as to compliment them (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sor...).
        cortic 8y ago
        my instinct tells me arguing this is pointless, because its vague enough that whatever the mods like they can keep and what they don't like can disappear... But just as an example i will break down your last post; >It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Breaks the Please don't post shallow dismissals rule. >That's why it's a good rule for HN. Breaks the Don't be snarky rule. >"Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope The use of "Air quotes" is the first snark trope on google. same rule you broke twice. Now I'm not calling for you to be banned, just pointing out that you attacked a borderline case and did it with a post that borderline broke the same vague rules.
  - dang 8y ago
    The comment was internet vitriol and the site guidelines ask users not to argue that way. You're right that it was far from the worst instance of it, but still. Pouring acid over the other side feels like championing goodness, but really is just pouring acid. It's an invitation to the other side to do the same, and that's how HN ends up burning. You guys remember that Hacker News is a community, yes? Community members have duties to the community, and to one another, no matter how strongly they disagree.
- dTal 8y ago
  "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
- glangdale 8y ago
  Yeah, I have to admit that I felt a kind of 'not following the letter of the rules' when I used the word 'cute'. Frankly, the argument against 'snark' on HN is a bit wearying to follow 100%. All I would have to do is obfuscate a bit and it sounds like principled disagreement ("It's perhaps a naive take that you ...", "I don't completely understand the line of reasoning that led you to think ..."). The thing is, out there in the world, you don't have to bother worrying that there's some starchy HN exceptionalism that doesn't allow you to answer something that's complete bullshit with a 'proper intellectual response'. It is a bit wearying to constantly deal with juvenelia ("Getting dropped from network TV is like being 'disappeared' by Stalin) in a fashion that would be commensurate with, say, a improper attribution of a remark from Wittgenstein uttered in the drawing room. It feels like HN's policies against 'snark' have the (no doubt unintentional) effect of shifting the Overton window towards requiring remarks - no matter how juvenile and daft - to be met with proper and careful drawing-room etiquette. So saying stuff that's completely absurd needs to be either unanswered (and left to stink up the room) or carefully argued against (making it sound way more plausible than it is). I understand that the slippery-slope version of my argument here suggests that anyone can meet anyone else with a torrent of personal abuse simply as a result of disagreement. That being said, I'm not 100% convinced that the right answer to someone uttering absurdities is to meet them with logical, guideline-approved non-snark. Also: to the nice people on the subthread defending my remark as somehow not snarky, thanks, but no. I intended to be a prick here - there's no entirely guidelines-compliant interpretation of my comment. My argument above is that judicious snark is probably better, and more honest, than either masking it ("your argument is characteristic of arguments made by people no doubt considerably less intelligent than you obviously are, my fine Sir") or by pretending that absurdity isn't absurd ("Well, you see, Stalin actually made people disappear and systematically erased them from libraries, while in this case, what we're talking about is...").

dang 8y ago

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

linza 8y ago
Is this really necessary? The exchange seems quite civil. What exactly in the GP gave offense that warrants pointing it out? HN seems like a generally civil place. Comments like these make it seem more uncivil, just like police patrolling "bad" neighborhoods more frequently.
- Lewton 8y ago
  We can’t tell whether the posts have been edited
  - kstenerud 8y ago
    They haven't.
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    Then dang could have specified exactly which statement transgressed the rules.
    - dang 8y ago
      "It's cute that you think [dumb thing]." Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - cortic 8y ago
        what is 'snarky' about 'cute'? I mean its not a very good rule, the general definition [snide and sharply critical.] could apply to most comments; but what specifically is you objection with 'cute', seems it could be taken as a compliment. And fyi- summarizing this persons quote as 'dumb thing' could be construed as snide and sharply critical.
        dang 8y ago
        It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Mostly there's a clear distinction between comments that contain that toxin and those that don't. That's why it's a good rule for HN. "Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope to use positive language in a demeaning way, because it makes a comment nastier when you do that. Another example is "I love how you", which is used about as often to attack someone as to compliment them (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sor...).
        cortic 8y ago
        my instinct tells me arguing this is pointless, because its vague enough that whatever the mods like they can keep and what they don't like can disappear... But just as an example i will break down your last post; >It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Breaks the Please don't post shallow dismissals rule. >That's why it's a good rule for HN. Breaks the Don't be snarky rule. >"Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope The use of "Air quotes" is the first snark trope on google. same rule you broke twice. Now I'm not calling for you to be banned, just pointing out that you attacked a borderline case and did it with a post that borderline broke the same vague rules.
- dang 8y ago
  The comment was internet vitriol and the site guidelines ask users not to argue that way. You're right that it was far from the worst instance of it, but still. Pouring acid over the other side feels like championing goodness, but really is just pouring acid. It's an invitation to the other side to do the same, and that's how HN ends up burning. You guys remember that Hacker News is a community, yes? Community members have duties to the community, and to one another, no matter how strongly they disagree.
dTal 8y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
glangdale 8y ago
Yeah, I have to admit that I felt a kind of 'not following the letter of the rules' when I used the word 'cute'. Frankly, the argument against 'snark' on HN is a bit wearying to follow 100%. All I would have to do is obfuscate a bit and it sounds like principled disagreement ("It's perhaps a naive take that you ...", "I don't completely understand the line of reasoning that led you to think ..."). The thing is, out there in the world, you don't have to bother worrying that there's some starchy HN exceptionalism that doesn't allow you to answer something that's complete bullshit with a 'proper intellectual response'. It is a bit wearying to constantly deal with juvenelia ("Getting dropped from network TV is like being 'disappeared' by Stalin) in a fashion that would be commensurate with, say, a improper attribution of a remark from Wittgenstein uttered in the drawing room. It feels like HN's policies against 'snark' have the (no doubt unintentional) effect of shifting the Overton window towards requiring remarks - no matter how juvenile and daft - to be met with proper and careful drawing-room etiquette. So saying stuff that's completely absurd needs to be either unanswered (and left to stink up the room) or carefully argued against (making it sound way more plausible than it is). I understand that the slippery-slope version of my argument here suggests that anyone can meet anyone else with a torrent of personal abuse simply as a result of disagreement. That being said, I'm not 100% convinced that the right answer to someone uttering absurdities is to meet them with logical, guideline-approved non-snark. Also: to the nice people on the subthread defending my remark as somehow not snarky, thanks, but no. I intended to be a prick here - there's no entirely guidelines-compliant interpretation of my comment. My argument above is that judicious snark is probably better, and more honest, than either masking it ("your argument is characteristic of arguments made by people no doubt considerably less intelligent than you obviously are, my fine Sir") or by pretending that absurdity isn't absurd ("Well, you see, Stalin actually made people disappear and systematically erased them from libraries, while in this case, what we're talking about is...").