4 ms·

Aggressively non-comformist comments also potentially result in a ban, especially when it comes to sensitive topics. The negatives outweigh the positives in man

Aggressively non-comformist comments also potentially result in a ban, especially when it comes to sensitive topics. The negatives outweigh the positives in many cases. Discussions here on scientific topics like human group differences border on outright delusional because there is no polite way of questioning the dogma. Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases?

User23 6y ago
> Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases? Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259. As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leanings are probably not shared with the majority of the HN commenting population. It's my observation that the moderation here tends to discourage discussion of issues like average race and sex differences not out of a desire to censor, but because they are inevitably a waste of time and no intellectually interesting discussion occurs. I suppose one could consider this a heckler's veto, but them's the breaks. Besides, there's no consensus on which side is heckling. In my experience discussion of such fraught topics that challenge deeply held beliefs is best started with persons that you know well and who are willing to approach the subject in a spirit of intellectual honesty and curiosity. That's hard to do on a pseudonymous Internet board with thousands of users. Edit: From your username I surmise that you are at the 'zon. I've heard from people on the inside that the climate has become rather oppressive for anyone who doesn't publicly embrace the Seattle/Portland school of politics. You're certainly not alone.
- amznthrowaway5 6y ago
  Banning discussion of fraught topics doesn't just affect the discussion about the fraught topics themselves, it also leads to biased and often meaningless discussion of every single other topic where the fraught stuff is an important factor. To have a meaningful discussion you need to be able to challenge base assumptions, you cannot do that here.

User23 6y ago

> Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases? Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259. As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leanings are probably not shared with the majority of the HN commenting population. It's my observation that the moderation here tends to discourage discussion of issues like average race and sex differences not out of a desire to censor, but because they are inevitably a waste of time and no intellectually interesting discussion occurs. I suppose one could consider this a heckler's veto, but them's the breaks. Besides, there's no consensus on which side is heckling. In my experience discussion of such fraught topics that challenge deeply held beliefs is best started with persons that you know well and who are willing to approach the subject in a spirit of intellectual honesty and curiosity. That's hard to do on a pseudonymous Internet board with thousands of users. Edit: From your username I surmise that you are at the 'zon. I've heard from people on the inside that the climate has become rather oppressive for anyone who doesn't publicly embrace the Seattle/Portland school of politics. You're certainly not alone.

amznthrowaway5 6y ago
Banning discussion of fraught topics doesn't just affect the discussion about the fraught topics themselves, it also leads to biased and often meaningless discussion of every single other topic where the fraught stuff is an important factor. To have a meaningful discussion you need to be able to challenge base assumptions, you cannot do that here.