40 ms·
This is such dogmatic bullshit that I can't be arsed. The "source" you're referring to is linked directly to the neoliberal thinktank Timbro. All your examples
by jahaja 7y ago
This is such dogmatic bullshit that I can't be arsed. The "source" you're referring to is linked directly to the neoliberal thinktank Timbro. All your examples are a recent development that's exactly my point.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't stoop to this level even if someone else is completely wrong, or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe them better personally (though why not?), but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jahaja 7y agoYou're right. Apologies. But surely I would get rightfully warned if I'd suggest that the US Army is a great example of successful Stalinism and link to my favourite commissar confirming my articulate trolling?
- dang 7y agoI'm not sure I understand the question, but for sure we don't care whether the comments that break the site guidelines are for or against any particular side. I'd never claim we do a perfect job of being unbiased, because most bias is unconscious, but what I can say is (a) we have many years of conscious practice at it, which must count for something, and (b) most of the time when people interpret moderation as picking on their side, it's a mechanical response (similar to how sports fans feel the refs pick on their favorites) that's not grounded in what we actually do, and doesn't see the cases where the 'other side' got moderated the same way. Does that make sense?