4 ms·

As someone who gets censored for wrongthink routinely, I’ve taken up having GitHub repos of links so it’s easy to support my point. Case in point: I’m “banned”

As someone who gets censored for wrongthink routinely, I’ve taken up having GitHub repos of links so it’s easy to support my point. Case in point: I’m “banned” on HN because @dang thinks my genuine view, calmly stated is inherently a flame war and I shouldn’t be allowed to join the conversation.

tomrod 6y ago
Flame wars aren't always launched or avoided due to the level-headedness of rhetorical delivery
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  Okay. Censoring some views because people can’t control themselves in response to those views calmly stated is a classic example of ideology censorship. I just wish @dang would be honest that HN engages in discrimination based on ideology.
herbstein 6y ago
I don't know which view it is you're talking about, but what @dang did isn't universally wrong. If the view is something that is as close as possible to objectively wrong, in the moral sense, as something could be, I'd say it's justified. An example of this could be genuinely stating "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "black people deserve slavery". You know, reprehensible stuff. There's no reasonable way to have that discussion. How do you debate whether a large minority is inherently sub-human? Like, I'm sure a Neo-Nazi would be able to calmly explain their views without attacking me (a white man) personally, verbally, or physically. But their view is inherently an attack on the humanity of other people. To be clear, I'm not saying you are actually a Neo-Nazi or a racist. They're just very, very clear-cut examples of the point I'm trying to make. Another example could be that someone stating that every LISP programmer is a child molester. There's no flamewar in the comment itself, but it's a view that can't be expressed without inciting one. Yet another example could be thinking that every person earning more than $50k is a capitalist pig and deserve the guillotine. Again, calmly stated as a matter of fact. But it's also calling for the execution of a large part of this site's audience. It would inherently cause a flamewar too. All of these examples are extreme, but I think the point that some views inherently having a piggybacking flamewar has been made. Where @dang decides to draw the line between controversial point with legitimate room for discussion, and views so abhorrent or nonsensical that it's easier to simply ban users perpetuating them is up to their discretion. I also don't think @dang bans people because of a single comment, but rather someone continually pushing the view that inherently leads to flamewars.
kazinator 6y ago
Can you point to any HN documentation which is misleading in this regard? So that is to say, where does HN have a discrepancy between what it "says on the box", and what's "in the box"? Where or how can a HN visitor be led into believing that HN is a site where one can post anything whatsoever without facing a moderating mechanism, as long as the material has a calm tone without any abusive language or personal attacks?
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  @dang has made repeated remarks that the censorship isn’t ideologically driven; I’m commenting that’s false.

tomrod 6y ago

Flame wars aren't always launched or avoided due to the level-headedness of rhetorical delivery

AnHonestComment 6y ago
Okay. Censoring some views because people can’t control themselves in response to those views calmly stated is a classic example of ideology censorship. I just wish @dang would be honest that HN engages in discrimination based on ideology.

herbstein 6y ago

I don't know which view it is you're talking about, but what @dang did isn't universally wrong. If the view is something that is as close as possible to objectively wrong, in the moral sense, as something could be, I'd say it's justified. An example of this could be genuinely stating "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "black people deserve slavery". You know, reprehensible stuff. There's no reasonable way to have that discussion. How do you debate whether a large minority is inherently sub-human? Like, I'm sure a Neo-Nazi would be able to calmly explain their views without attacking me (a white man) personally, verbally, or physically. But their view is inherently an attack on the humanity of other people. To be clear, I'm not saying you are actually a Neo-Nazi or a racist. They're just very, very clear-cut examples of the point I'm trying to make. Another example could be that someone stating that every LISP programmer is a child molester. There's no flamewar in the comment itself, but it's a view that can't be expressed without inciting one. Yet another example could be thinking that every person earning more than $50k is a capitalist pig and deserve the guillotine. Again, calmly stated as a matter of fact. But it's also calling for the execution of a large part of this site's audience. It would inherently cause a flamewar too. All of these examples are extreme, but I think the point that some views inherently having a piggybacking flamewar has been made. Where @dang decides to draw the line between controversial point with legitimate room for discussion, and views so abhorrent or nonsensical that it's easier to simply ban users perpetuating them is up to their discretion. I also don't think @dang bans people because of a single comment, but rather someone continually pushing the view that inherently leads to flamewars.

kazinator 6y ago

Can you point to any HN documentation which is misleading in this regard? So that is to say, where does HN have a discrepancy between what it "says on the box", and what's "in the box"? Where or how can a HN visitor be led into believing that HN is a site where one can post anything whatsoever without facing a moderating mechanism, as long as the material has a calm tone without any abusive language or personal attacks?

AnHonestComment 6y ago
@dang has made repeated remarks that the censorship isn’t ideologically driven; I’m commenting that’s false.