4 ms·

One of the most annoying things in hacker news is people downvoting any opinion that doesn't match their world view. I don't necessarily agree with the poster

One of the most annoying things in hacker news is people downvoting any opinion that doesn't match their world view. I don't necessarily agree with the poster above, but it is obviously not an instance of trolling, also it is not offensive or damaging to anyone.

robohoe 7y ago
Same really goes for every social media/news site that allows comments and voting.
danso 7y ago
Declaring that journalists today aren’t writing anything of importance is a pretty trolling assertion.
- marcoseliziario 7y ago
  Maybe it is a hyperbole. Maybe it is a radical opinion. In both cases, it is not clear it is a trolling assertion, because it fails the test of being clearly an opinion given with the intent of derailing a discussion. A troll is not someone with radical, out of average opinions, a troll is someone that wants to derail a discussion. It doesn't look like that for me. It is no even that much of a novel assertion, in one form or another, I've been hearing opinions like that from people from all sides of the political spectrum since I became interested on politic debates. It is not that far from what you've got reading books like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or from what you read on a lot of right-wing blogs. If you think this is an incorrect and unjust assertion, and I would be strongly attracted to agree with you, the best course of action is not silencing the speaker, but engaging in rational discussion with them. Then, and only then, if the poster refuses to address your arguments rationally, and starts things like personal attacks, fallacious arguments, and a general uncalled-for aggressiveness, we could justly label them as a troll and act accordingly, not before.
- marcoseliziario 7y ago
  Ironically, someone downvoted you. Which is a shame. Even not agreeing with what you said about it, I really appreciated the opportunity to present my counter-points to you.
  - danso 7y ago
    I appreciate your lengthy response.
dillondoyle 7y ago
I disagree (though I didn't down vote). I think the sentiment expressed is fairly dangerous without clear evidence. I had a similar reaction reading what the parent comment wrote as to when I hear people say my vote doesn't count; just by expressing that (wrong) opinion has dangerous consequences.
- kijin 7y ago
  Sentiments are not dangerous. Textual expressions of sentiments are not dangerous. Real-life consequences are. But often those consequences are not a direct result of sentiments, but of an underlying socioeconomic problem of which poorly articulated sentiments are often mere symptoms. Suppressing the symptoms and pretending they don't exist won't make the root cause go away. If anything, it will only make the eventual consequences hit us more violently. People will say that the blow-up was sudden and unexpected, but in fact they've been ignoring the warning signs all along.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - croon 7y ago
    > Sentiments are not dangerous. Textual expressions of sentiments are not dangerous. This is stating fundamentally that manipulation, propaganda, brainwashing etc does not work. Which is patently false. So obviously there is a spectrum. Seeing as it's very possible to steer people through words, the remaining debate is regarding what is dangerous and not.
    - kijin 7y ago
      > This is stating fundamentally that manipulation, propaganda, brainwashing etc does not work. Those things have the desired effect only when the manipulated sentiments result in concrete actions such as voting or not voting for someone, buying or not buying something, treating somebody in a certain way, etc. I want as much as anybody else to block the effects of these menaces. But the way to do it is to block the pathway from propaganda to sentiment to action (to use a pharmacological analogy), not to suppress the sentiment. The whole idea of the free press depends on supporting the free expression of ideas, sentiments, arguments, and testimonies and only suppressing actually detrimental actions. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously noted, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. Start trying to bury some people's ideas just because they might encourage others to behave in a certain way, and it's not a long way from there to book-burning territory.

robohoe 7y ago

Same really goes for every social media/news site that allows comments and voting.

danso 7y ago

Declaring that journalists today aren’t writing anything of importance is a pretty trolling assertion.

marcoseliziario 7y ago
Maybe it is a hyperbole. Maybe it is a radical opinion. In both cases, it is not clear it is a trolling assertion, because it fails the test of being clearly an opinion given with the intent of derailing a discussion. A troll is not someone with radical, out of average opinions, a troll is someone that wants to derail a discussion. It doesn't look like that for me. It is no even that much of a novel assertion, in one form or another, I've been hearing opinions like that from people from all sides of the political spectrum since I became interested on politic debates. It is not that far from what you've got reading books like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or from what you read on a lot of right-wing blogs. If you think this is an incorrect and unjust assertion, and I would be strongly attracted to agree with you, the best course of action is not silencing the speaker, but engaging in rational discussion with them. Then, and only then, if the poster refuses to address your arguments rationally, and starts things like personal attacks, fallacious arguments, and a general uncalled-for aggressiveness, we could justly label them as a troll and act accordingly, not before.
marcoseliziario 7y ago
Ironically, someone downvoted you. Which is a shame. Even not agreeing with what you said about it, I really appreciated the opportunity to present my counter-points to you.
- danso 7y ago
  I appreciate your lengthy response.

dillondoyle 7y ago

I disagree (though I didn't down vote). I think the sentiment expressed is fairly dangerous without clear evidence. I had a similar reaction reading what the parent comment wrote as to when I hear people say my vote doesn't count; just by expressing that (wrong) opinion has dangerous consequences.

kijin 7y ago
Sentiments are not dangerous. Textual expressions of sentiments are not dangerous. Real-life consequences are. But often those consequences are not a direct result of sentiments, but of an underlying socioeconomic problem of which poorly articulated sentiments are often mere symptoms. Suppressing the symptoms and pretending they don't exist won't make the root cause go away. If anything, it will only make the eventual consequences hit us more violently. People will say that the blow-up was sudden and unexpected, but in fact they've been ignoring the warning signs all along.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- croon 7y ago
  > Sentiments are not dangerous. Textual expressions of sentiments are not dangerous. This is stating fundamentally that manipulation, propaganda, brainwashing etc does not work. Which is patently false. So obviously there is a spectrum. Seeing as it's very possible to steer people through words, the remaining debate is regarding what is dangerous and not.
  - kijin 7y ago
    > This is stating fundamentally that manipulation, propaganda, brainwashing etc does not work. Those things have the desired effect only when the manipulated sentiments result in concrete actions such as voting or not voting for someone, buying or not buying something, treating somebody in a certain way, etc. I want as much as anybody else to block the effects of these menaces. But the way to do it is to block the pathway from propaganda to sentiment to action (to use a pharmacological analogy), not to suppress the sentiment. The whole idea of the free press depends on supporting the free expression of ideas, sentiments, arguments, and testimonies and only suppressing actually detrimental actions. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously noted, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. Start trying to bury some people's ideas just because they might encourage others to behave in a certain way, and it's not a long way from there to book-burning territory.