3 ms·

This discussion was long excised from the front page yet my comments were multiply flagged (despite being absolutely benign given the scale of it), I got a warn

This discussion was long excised from the front page yet my comments were multiply flagged (despite being absolutely benign given the scale of it), I got a warning from dang, etc. Somehow it was yielding significant traffic when it should have been seeing none. I don't know where the brigade was drawn from, but this is simply incredible anti-intellectualism writ large. Seeing the pandering of this sort of behavior on HN is deeply disturbing. Seeing this guy's classic denialist post literally as the top moderated post on HN -- wow, I wouldn't trust this aggregate crowd on any topic. It is one of those eye-opening moments that makes me seriously ask what I'm doing here. When we have to treat all "opinions" as if they carry weight, we are doomed.

chrchang523 7y ago
You're mistaking anti-religious-authority behavior for "anti-intellectualism". Climate change is a long-term issue we absolutely should deal with, but the consequences of not doing as much as ideal are, while large, still normalish-distribution-bad, not apocalypse-bad. Too much of the messaging around climate change to date has been apocalyptic. Realistically, anyone who wants to create a bubble of actually constructive discussion and action in this area in a public forum in 2019 should ban all apocalyptic terms/discussion on sight, to avoid triggering a huge number of people who are offended by bogus apocalyptic claims.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Climate change absolutely is apocalyptic-levels of bad, just not for the nations contributing the most to climate change yet. It seems to me that the people 'triggered' by 'bogus apocalyptic claims' are those that honestly, in my opinion, don't want to face the stark reality that many people are facing right now due to the way we treat our environment and would prefer to cover their ears and hope it goes away. Banning that sort of discussion just means nations like Vanuatu get to continually be silenced.
  - chrchang523 7y ago
    Wow, somebody really hasn’t done their homework. Hint: Most of Singapore is at an elevation of <15m; they’re roughly as exposed as Vanuatu. They also have a government with one of the best technocratic track records in the world. And they’re keeping an eye on climate change, but they aren’t panicking.
Gibbon1 7y ago
Point is dang, his boss, most of the people here viscerally hate the idea of collective action. Yet climate change is something that can only be tackled by good faith collective action. So here we are.

chrchang523 7y ago

You're mistaking anti-religious-authority behavior for "anti-intellectualism". Climate change is a long-term issue we absolutely should deal with, but the consequences of not doing as much as ideal are, while large, still normalish-distribution-bad, not apocalypse-bad. Too much of the messaging around climate change to date has been apocalyptic. Realistically, anyone who wants to create a bubble of actually constructive discussion and action in this area in a public forum in 2019 should ban all apocalyptic terms/discussion on sight, to avoid triggering a huge number of people who are offended by bogus apocalyptic claims.

fzeroracer 7y ago
Climate change absolutely is apocalyptic-levels of bad, just not for the nations contributing the most to climate change yet. It seems to me that the people 'triggered' by 'bogus apocalyptic claims' are those that honestly, in my opinion, don't want to face the stark reality that many people are facing right now due to the way we treat our environment and would prefer to cover their ears and hope it goes away. Banning that sort of discussion just means nations like Vanuatu get to continually be silenced.
- chrchang523 7y ago
  Wow, somebody really hasn’t done their homework. Hint: Most of Singapore is at an elevation of <15m; they’re roughly as exposed as Vanuatu. They also have a government with one of the best technocratic track records in the world. And they’re keeping an eye on climate change, but they aren’t panicking.

Gibbon1 7y ago

Point is dang, his boss, most of the people here viscerally hate the idea of collective action. Yet climate change is something that can only be tackled by good faith collective action. So here we are.