3 ms·
The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what so
by ketzu 6y ago
The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago> whenever it is ignored, discussion derails It also derails exactly when people post in bad faith. This rule is self-defeating as long as nothing covers this gap.
- DanBC 6y agoWe need to remember that the HN rule allows very polite racists to speak about how they feel Black people are genetically inferior, and then bans the people who respond angrily.
- ketzu 6y agoThat's an uncharitable reading of HNs guidelines. I would interpret the following part of it differently: > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. My interpretation is more: HN considers polite racists to be a moderation problem, not a hook for angry shouting at each other.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago"be the better person" applies. If they are making a well founded statement but you don't agree with it on a moral level, you CAN try and argue with them, but if you get angry at them you lose the argument by default. You can bring up counter-arguments and sources and the like. You can (and probably should) choose to not engage, and just downvote or flag (if you feel like it violates guidelines). One problem of the internet as a whole (and I am guilty of it too) is that people feel like they HAVE to engage, even if it's futile.
- effingwewt 6y agoIndeed just as with wiki-lawyers, and everything else with humans involved, the rules/politeness will be used as a weapon by some and all of us who abide are beaten by them.