6 ms·

For climate change, if someone links a fake study that comes to the right conclusion, you can still call them out for it. If they bring up some statistics you c

by La1n 6y ago

For climate change, if someone links a fake study that comes to the right conclusion, you can still call them out for it. If they bring up some statistics you can still ask where they come from, and see if they are generated in a valid way. If someone asks you shouldn't link them other studies. There is nothing wrong with asking how we can know some specific source is truthful or not. So far no one has answered my actual questions.

loceng 6y ago
I never said there's nothing wrong with asking how we can know some specific source is truthful or not. You ignored all of my points as well. Do you think it looks good or bad/guilty if the CCP prevents the United Nations from sending in people to investigate these claims - so that they could in fact see if the behaviour in these videos is true, and potentially at scale, as they seem to be?
- La1n 6y ago
  Those points are not related to this topic, and derail the conversation. This is not what HN is for. We can start this discussion but it would fully derail anything related to Apple redirecting Safe Browsing traffic. It also doesn't answer if a video is truthful, or a law that people talk about actually exists as described.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Gatekeeping the conversation is another bad faith argument, and a control/suppression tactic, and I assume why others are downvoting you; your logic is incongruent as well, we did start the conversation - and then you keep trying to avoid it, you could just not respond if you didn't want to get into it - in fact you opened up the conversation asking a question in regards to the CCP.
  - dang 6y ago
    It's looking like your account is hovering on the edge of using HN primarily for political and/or nationalistic battle. That's a line at which we start considering banning an account, because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys the curious conversation that HN is supposed to exist for. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting to HN? We'd appreciate it. More explanation on how and why we moderate HN this way: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
    - La1n 6y ago
      Can you tell me how to deal with people who bring up unsourced things that I feel aren't (fully) true, or are "fake news"? I agree that I can sometimes get stuck in a discussion, but I also feel like it's harmful to let unsourced claims spread. In this thread I mostly wanted people to source the claims they were making, and for that I got downvoted and called a shill. How should I approach this in the future?
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, or post in the flamewar style generally. We're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - loceng 6y ago
    I'm simply replying to their comments. Are you seriously going to side with the person claiming my 100% CCP related comments aren't related to the CCP? Please don't give into the gaslighting dang. Edit to add: actually, please point out where there's any anger in anything I said, or the other person said, flamewar - "angry or abusive messages." If you read the messages as perhaps intense, maybe you could define them as intense - as they are important topics. I'd really like clarification on how this qualifies as flamewars. Really curious who flagged this as well? Was the person involved in trying to suppress the conversation on the CCP one of them who flagged it?
    - dang 6y ago
      When people start getting into meta-argument like "I never said $X" and "You're ignoring all my points", that's a clear marker of degeneration into flamewar, especially the tit-for-tat-spat variety. That, combined with the drift in the generic-nationalistic direction, is enough to count your comments as taking the thread further into flamewar. This is not a hard call. Just look at the number of generic hops it takes to get from "Apple redirects Google Safe Browsing traffic through proxy servers" all the way to "CCP doesn't allow United Nations inspectors". That is exactly how internet discussions become more repetitive, more predictable, and nastier. The basic principle of HN moderation is to try to nudge threads in the opposite direction to that. Lots more explanation about those things here if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... "Gaslighting", "suppress the conversation", "CCP" are red herrings. We don't care which high-order bit you've got set on your views. We care about the conversation as a whole. It would be just the same if you were arguing the opposite side. Actually I don't even bother figuring out which side people are on any more—the flamewar comments are basically interchangeable either way.

by La1n 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

I never said there's nothing wrong with asking how we can know some specific source is truthful or not. You ignored all of my points as well. Do you think it looks good or bad/guilty if the CCP prevents the United Nations from sending in people to investigate these claims - so that they could in fact see if the behaviour in these videos is true, and potentially at scale, as they seem to be?

La1n 6y ago
Those points are not related to this topic, and derail the conversation. This is not what HN is for. We can start this discussion but it would fully derail anything related to Apple redirecting Safe Browsing traffic. It also doesn't answer if a video is truthful, or a law that people talk about actually exists as described.
- loceng 6y ago
  Gatekeeping the conversation is another bad faith argument, and a control/suppression tactic, and I assume why others are downvoting you; your logic is incongruent as well, we did start the conversation - and then you keep trying to avoid it, you could just not respond if you didn't want to get into it - in fact you opened up the conversation asking a question in regards to the CCP.
- dang 6y ago
  It's looking like your account is hovering on the edge of using HN primarily for political and/or nationalistic battle. That's a line at which we start considering banning an account, because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys the curious conversation that HN is supposed to exist for. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting to HN? We'd appreciate it. More explanation on how and why we moderate HN this way: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
  - La1n 6y ago
    Can you tell me how to deal with people who bring up unsourced things that I feel aren't (fully) true, or are "fake news"? I agree that I can sometimes get stuck in a discussion, but I also feel like it's harmful to let unsourced claims spread. In this thread I mostly wanted people to source the claims they were making, and for that I got downvoted and called a shill. How should I approach this in the future?
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, or post in the flamewar style generally. We're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- loceng 6y ago
  I'm simply replying to their comments. Are you seriously going to side with the person claiming my 100% CCP related comments aren't related to the CCP? Please don't give into the gaslighting dang. Edit to add: actually, please point out where there's any anger in anything I said, or the other person said, flamewar - "angry or abusive messages." If you read the messages as perhaps intense, maybe you could define them as intense - as they are important topics. I'd really like clarification on how this qualifies as flamewars. Really curious who flagged this as well? Was the person involved in trying to suppress the conversation on the CCP one of them who flagged it?
  - dang 6y ago
    When people start getting into meta-argument like "I never said $X" and "You're ignoring all my points", that's a clear marker of degeneration into flamewar, especially the tit-for-tat-spat variety. That, combined with the drift in the generic-nationalistic direction, is enough to count your comments as taking the thread further into flamewar. This is not a hard call. Just look at the number of generic hops it takes to get from "Apple redirects Google Safe Browsing traffic through proxy servers" all the way to "CCP doesn't allow United Nations inspectors". That is exactly how internet discussions become more repetitive, more predictable, and nastier. The basic principle of HN moderation is to try to nudge threads in the opposite direction to that. Lots more explanation about those things here if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... "Gaslighting", "suppress the conversation", "CCP" are red herrings. We don't care which high-order bit you've got set on your views. We care about the conversation as a whole. It would be just the same if you were arguing the opposite side. Actually I don't even bother figuring out which side people are on any more—the flamewar comments are basically interchangeable either way.