6 ms·

> Taking HN threads further into flamewar is also not ok. I mean, where's the warning for insubstantial, ideological flamebait in the first place for the top p

> Taking HN threads further into flamewar is also not ok. I mean, where's the warning for insubstantial, ideological flamebait in the first place for the top post, dang? And the climate change post before that, and the one before that... They post these things based on their gut reaction to the headline, and now the discussion in here is about the OP and not the subject at hand.

dang 7y ago
Devolving to personal attack is worse. Someone else posting misinformation is no excuse. If you have better information, you are responsible for presenting it in a way that doesn't take the discussion deeper into hell. Failing that responsibility discredits the truth, which makes things worse all around. If you see a comment that you think we should have moderated but we didn't, the likeliest reason is that we just didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here.
endorphone 7y ago
This discussion somehow became brigaded by AGW deniers and you could see a stark turn in moderation, where an absolutely ignorant (not an attack, an observation) root post sits shining high on the mount despite being just embarrassing. It is incredible and sad that HN is yet another tool for deniers and anti-science charlatans. And if dang thinks that's a personal attack, feel free to delete my attack friend -- the value of this site when it hosts such a cancerous collection of knuckledraggers approaches zero.