4 ms·

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-warri

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

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