> Well, if this is what it takes to stop the outrage cascades from taking over HN too, I'm quite fine with it. I would guess that what it takes to stop outrage

> Well, if this is what it takes to stop the outrage cascades from taking over HN too, I'm quite fine with it. I would guess that what it takes to stop outrage cascades is heavy handed moderation of the comments that promote it, either you agree with them or not. E.g. all outrage comments ends as dead either they believe in AGW or not. With a few exceptions [0] I find it better to hold a reasonable concersation with people I disagree with than making them martyrs. I personally think it would be extremely much more useful to discuss hot topics openly, remove flagging privilege for people who abuse it to flag honest questions (just look how short time it takes from a poor soul asks an honest question about actual numbers in a climate thread before downvotes and flags pile up because "just asking questions" is always just a tactic.) Same with a lot of other stuff. Just on my way home I had a very interesting discussion with a former UN soldier who disagrees with me on a topic that interests both of us. But it was interesting because I'm actually listening to verify if I'm missing something, and I guess it was interesting for that other person as well because even if I objected to a couple of points I did so by pointing to verifiable information that could nuance tjat persons opinion (if they wanted) instead of saying "you are wrong". [0]: for a good example I personally don't argue with actual nazis - but you might find me trying to talk sense into people who get called nazis but are really just unreasonably worried about immigration or aren't too good with statistics.