3 ms·

I'm not sure why this was flagged. It's moderately tangential, but within the variance I'd expect from a HN discussion. It's substantial enough to chew on. If

I'm not sure why this was flagged. It's moderately tangential, but within the variance I'd expect from a HN discussion. It's substantial enough to chew on. If it's about 'his orangeness', I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone on a forum predomenantly frequented by tech workers and west-coastals to be able to say Trump's name without spitting, and outside of that it's a fairly reasonable description current circumstances.

shkkmo 6y ago
I think it is entirely reasonable to expect civility. If you can't mention someone's name and remain civil, you should refrain from discussing that individual on this site.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion. Personally, I consider the compulsion many people have to put a pound of contempt into every ounce of contrition they grant Trump's administration to be childish, and honestly quite alarming for its ubiquity. But if we want to get to a point where people who vociferously oppose trump are willing to tolerate reasoned dialogues considering the administration's legacy, I think collectively loosening our expectations around tone for comments that are otherwise well thought out and cut against the communal grain for a bit could help fix things. "Fuck that guy, but he's occasionally right for the wrong reasons" is a significant improvement on "Fuck that guy, always and don't question it".
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    > Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion. If you can't discuss a topic civily, you should not discuss it here.
nerdponx 6y ago
I agree. If anything, it's a lucid, realistic take. And the "orange man" jokes long pre-dated Trump's presidency, it's about the same level of offensive as an unflattering SNL impression.

3 ms·

I'm not sure why this was flagged. It's moderately tangential, but within the variance I'd expect from a HN discussion. It's substantial enough to chew on. If

by crocodiletears 6y ago

shkkmo 6y ago
I think it is entirely reasonable to expect civility. If you can't mention someone's name and remain civil, you should refrain from discussing that individual on this site.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion. Personally, I consider the compulsion many people have to put a pound of contempt into every ounce of contrition they grant Trump's administration to be childish, and honestly quite alarming for its ubiquity. But if we want to get to a point where people who vociferously oppose trump are willing to tolerate reasoned dialogues considering the administration's legacy, I think collectively loosening our expectations around tone for comments that are otherwise well thought out and cut against the communal grain for a bit could help fix things. "Fuck that guy, but he's occasionally right for the wrong reasons" is a significant improvement on "Fuck that guy, always and don't question it".
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    > Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion. If you can't discuss a topic civily, you should not discuss it here.
nerdponx 6y ago
I agree. If anything, it's a lucid, realistic take. And the "orange man" jokes long pre-dated Trump's presidency, it's about the same level of offensive as an unflattering SNL impression.