3 ms·

How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? The implied directi

by webXL 8y ago

How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? The implied direction of the harassment might not be what the OP was talking about, but it's certainly related to the topic. As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
I will admit it was inflammatory but I had to pick the most contentious subject such that this forum will have the appropriate echo chamber response. If I brought up Michigan state politics, virtually nobody would care.
dwaltrip 8y ago
> How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? I read the article and didn't notice it. Looking back, it was an offhand mention in a fragment of a single sentence. Clearly not the focus. > As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good. This is a strawman. No one is talking about that kind of climate change.
- webXL 8y ago
  > Clearly not the focus. But also not wildly off-topic. Every HN discussion brings in all sorts of viewpoints that make it more encompassing of the submission's focus. If something is tangentially related, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. > No one is talking about that kind of climate change. Um, they should be. How else would you answer the question what's the optimal climate if we're trying to mitigate change? Surely if it's not the current climate, then successfully changing the climate to the optimal conditions would be "good" climate change, right?

by webXL 8y ago

sleepysysadmin 8y ago

I will admit it was inflammatory but I had to pick the most contentious subject such that this forum will have the appropriate echo chamber response. If I brought up Michigan state politics, virtually nobody would care.

dwaltrip 8y ago

> How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? I read the article and didn't notice it. Looking back, it was an offhand mention in a fragment of a single sentence. Clearly not the focus. > As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good. This is a strawman. No one is talking about that kind of climate change.

webXL 8y ago
> Clearly not the focus. But also not wildly off-topic. Every HN discussion brings in all sorts of viewpoints that make it more encompassing of the submission's focus. If something is tangentially related, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. > No one is talking about that kind of climate change. Um, they should be. How else would you answer the question what's the optimal climate if we're trying to mitigate change? Surely if it's not the current climate, then successfully changing the climate to the optimal conditions would be "good" climate change, right?