4 ms·

dang, this is clearly on-topic. ICE is in the title of the post. Not every response to a political post that is apathy incarnate is an "ideological flamewar".

dang, this is clearly on-topic. ICE is in the title of the post. Not every response to a political post that is apathy incarnate is an "ideological flamewar". Some things have to be named as what they are, this is not hyperbole. This is happening right now. And I'm sorry anything but your typical "but what about refusing services to the gays" makes you uncomfortable.

dang 7y ago
What makes political flamewars off topic on HN is that they are repetitive and therefore predictable. There's no curiosity in that, and HN is a site for curiosity. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Substantive conversation about the specifics of the OP is different; that's possible, and if people can do it, it's on topic here. But it takes discipline not to devolve into flame-throwing. When a thread gets to the level of name-calling about concentration camps, there's no substantive discussion left to be had. Internet forums as a medium are quick to become vessels for venting rather than information sharing. That's what we want to avoid here. If your wish is to fight battles and smite enemies, please do so elsewhere. I'm sure there are many good reasons to smite them; we are certainly not saying that these issues are unimportant.
- iron0013 7y ago
  dang, it's not name-calling to call concentration camps what they are. ICE literally runs concentration camps. There's no exaggeration, trolling, or flame-warring involved in saying so. It's simply the same way that it's not libelous to call someone who committed murder a "murderer"--because they earned the title when they committed the murder.
  - dang 7y ago
    When I said name-calling I was referring to words like vile and cynic. Words like concentration camp seem to me in a different category. They aren't necessarily name-calling, but they do have dual semantics: a factual aspect and a pejorative one. If all a comment does is repeat those words and add additional pejoratives, that's not a substantive comment by HN standards. Repeating pejoratives very much feels like "saying what something is" or "naming things as they are". But it feels like exactly the opposite of that to others, who then feel justified in escalating. That is the dynamic of flamewar, not conversation. We can't have both, and HN threads are supposed to be conversations.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      It's clear that you've thought about this, so what do you suggest is the appropriate way to have a constructive conversation with someone who openly endorses atrocities? The pro-atrocity side is welcome to describe the crimes they support in warm, fuzzy terms that do not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but the anti-atrocity side cannot even freely state their case because it naturally involves invoking the truth of horrific events. Are we bound to stay silent about such actions because those who support them may be offended by being associated with their plainly factual content?
      - dang 7y ago
        I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to this. I meant to, but got swept away by the waves of everything that gets posted here. Our intention is to give every sincere question a sincere answer, so I'm sorry to have left the wrong impression in this case. It's just not always possible given resource constraints. I'm sure we can revisit this in the future.
        iron0013 7y ago
        Thanks! appreciate it

dang 7y ago

What makes political flamewars off topic on HN is that they are repetitive and therefore predictable. There's no curiosity in that, and HN is a site for curiosity. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Substantive conversation about the specifics of the OP is different; that's possible, and if people can do it, it's on topic here. But it takes discipline not to devolve into flame-throwing. When a thread gets to the level of name-calling about concentration camps, there's no substantive discussion left to be had. Internet forums as a medium are quick to become vessels for venting rather than information sharing. That's what we want to avoid here. If your wish is to fight battles and smite enemies, please do so elsewhere. I'm sure there are many good reasons to smite them; we are certainly not saying that these issues are unimportant.

iron0013 7y ago
dang, it's not name-calling to call concentration camps what they are. ICE literally runs concentration camps. There's no exaggeration, trolling, or flame-warring involved in saying so. It's simply the same way that it's not libelous to call someone who committed murder a "murderer"--because they earned the title when they committed the murder.
- dang 7y ago
  When I said name-calling I was referring to words like vile and cynic. Words like concentration camp seem to me in a different category. They aren't necessarily name-calling, but they do have dual semantics: a factual aspect and a pejorative one. If all a comment does is repeat those words and add additional pejoratives, that's not a substantive comment by HN standards. Repeating pejoratives very much feels like "saying what something is" or "naming things as they are". But it feels like exactly the opposite of that to others, who then feel justified in escalating. That is the dynamic of flamewar, not conversation. We can't have both, and HN threads are supposed to be conversations.
  - iron0013 7y ago
    It's clear that you've thought about this, so what do you suggest is the appropriate way to have a constructive conversation with someone who openly endorses atrocities? The pro-atrocity side is welcome to describe the crimes they support in warm, fuzzy terms that do not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but the anti-atrocity side cannot even freely state their case because it naturally involves invoking the truth of horrific events. Are we bound to stay silent about such actions because those who support them may be offended by being associated with their plainly factual content?
    - dang 7y ago
      I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to this. I meant to, but got swept away by the waves of everything that gets posted here. Our intention is to give every sincere question a sincere answer, so I'm sorry to have left the wrong impression in this case. It's just not always possible given resource constraints. I'm sure we can revisit this in the future.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        Thanks! appreciate it