3 ms·

I don't think that trying to appear less aggressive is the correct ethical response to the putrid horror show unfolding here. Aiming for a civil discussion of "

by pron 6y ago

I don't think that trying to appear less aggressive is the correct ethical response to the putrid horror show unfolding here. Aiming for a civil discussion of "the woman problem" is not the right goal here. The correct answer to how should we best debate the question, But What Shall We Do About the Women? is not to have such a discussion at all. Just the fact that how to treat women is even considered an appropriate topic for discussion is enough to deter any human that isn't on the autistic spectrum from approaching this community, and the industry sector it represents. If the dehumanising, humiliating monstrosity of this "discussion" is hard to see, try replacing "women" on this page with "Irish" or "Jews."

dang 6y ago
I'm just asking you not to omit gratuitous flamebait like "men will take any woman they see, kidnap her, and lock her in a dungeon" and "women do not want the vote" from your HN comments. It's obviously against the site guidelines, and pouring kerosene on flames is arson even if the building was already on fire. People who feel strongly on topics routinely use language like "putrid horror show" to justify their own breaking of the site guidelines and making a discussion even worse than it already is. This sort of "why bother" / "fuck it" attitude is a big part of why things are so bad to begin with; it leads people to create the situation they deplore. No one wants to look at the "putridity" of their own contributions—the problem is always caused by other, never by self. The only solution I can see to this is to prioritize taking care of the commons, regardless of how bad things are or you feel they are.
- pron 6y ago
  I don't think you understand the seriousness of what's unfolding here, and the level of virulent dehumanisation expressed. There is no right way to discuss "The Woman Question" any more than there is a right way to discuss "The Jewish Question." The tone of discussion is insignificant in comparison to conducting it in the first place.
  - dang 6y ago
    Where you get these thoughts that you imagine moderators think, I don't know, but I don't recognize any of them. I don't give a shit about tone. I'm simply trying to support an internet forum in not going to hell and asking you not to make that job harder. What I hear you saying is that it's already gone to hell, so it doesn't matter what you do. Actually it matters a lot what you do. Every user here needs to abide by the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Bringing up "Jewish Question" is singularly unhelpful and more gratuitous provocation. It seems to me that you're the main person framing this thread as "Woman Question" to begin with, then using that to justify pouring kerosene of your own. That's not cool. What I've noticed is that users with strong ideological passions tend to describe as "putrid" and "cesspool" and so on, any discussion in which their own ideology isn't imposed as the dominant one. That's understandable, but it's not a realistic demand. HN is a large forum which is as divided on ideological topics as any other large population sample—moreover this population sample is all over the world, which unfortunately makes people far more prone to interpret others' statements as "putrid" without it even dawning on anyone that that's a factor. Much as I might wish it, we don't have the power to change how divided this community is. All we can do is look for ways to nudge users into having thoughtful discussion despite divisions. Everyone has a different sense of what that might look like, and we can talk about how to do that, but we don't have the power to make people agree.
    - pron 6y ago
      There is a great moderation tool for such a discussion: not to have it. I think my framing is helpful, because clearly you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Here are three comments I picked from the top five at the moment (so, almost at random); there are far worse ones: > As an investor, of course I clam up. I spend my days looking at the world in terms of risk-adjusted returns and cost benefit analyses, so why would I take a human capital risk? My entire business is based on my reputation and I've seen what happens to the people who get comments like "not the best with Jews at conferences" ... I can count on two hands the number of Jews I would feel comfortable giving the exact same feedback to as I would a non-Jew. > I appreciate the effort to think of a better word than antisemitism. My question is, is this even antisemitism at all? How many people can get publicly denounced as “antisemites” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “antisemitic” to be extra careful with how you speak to Jews. > Imagine what it's like being the intended target and not just "collateral damage". It's not a problem that non-Jews are nervous to be candid but it's a problem that Jews are feeling the secondary effects of that?

by pron 6y ago

dang 6y ago

I'm just asking you not to omit gratuitous flamebait like "men will take any woman they see, kidnap her, and lock her in a dungeon" and "women do not want the vote" from your HN comments. It's obviously against the site guidelines, and pouring kerosene on flames is arson even if the building was already on fire. People who feel strongly on topics routinely use language like "putrid horror show" to justify their own breaking of the site guidelines and making a discussion even worse than it already is. This sort of "why bother" / "fuck it" attitude is a big part of why things are so bad to begin with; it leads people to create the situation they deplore. No one wants to look at the "putridity" of their own contributions—the problem is always caused by other, never by self. The only solution I can see to this is to prioritize taking care of the commons, regardless of how bad things are or you feel they are.

pron 6y ago
I don't think you understand the seriousness of what's unfolding here, and the level of virulent dehumanisation expressed. There is no right way to discuss "The Woman Question" any more than there is a right way to discuss "The Jewish Question." The tone of discussion is insignificant in comparison to conducting it in the first place.
- dang 6y ago
  Where you get these thoughts that you imagine moderators think, I don't know, but I don't recognize any of them. I don't give a shit about tone. I'm simply trying to support an internet forum in not going to hell and asking you not to make that job harder. What I hear you saying is that it's already gone to hell, so it doesn't matter what you do. Actually it matters a lot what you do. Every user here needs to abide by the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Bringing up "Jewish Question" is singularly unhelpful and more gratuitous provocation. It seems to me that you're the main person framing this thread as "Woman Question" to begin with, then using that to justify pouring kerosene of your own. That's not cool. What I've noticed is that users with strong ideological passions tend to describe as "putrid" and "cesspool" and so on, any discussion in which their own ideology isn't imposed as the dominant one. That's understandable, but it's not a realistic demand. HN is a large forum which is as divided on ideological topics as any other large population sample—moreover this population sample is all over the world, which unfortunately makes people far more prone to interpret others' statements as "putrid" without it even dawning on anyone that that's a factor. Much as I might wish it, we don't have the power to change how divided this community is. All we can do is look for ways to nudge users into having thoughtful discussion despite divisions. Everyone has a different sense of what that might look like, and we can talk about how to do that, but we don't have the power to make people agree.
  - pron 6y ago
    There is a great moderation tool for such a discussion: not to have it. I think my framing is helpful, because clearly you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Here are three comments I picked from the top five at the moment (so, almost at random); there are far worse ones: > As an investor, of course I clam up. I spend my days looking at the world in terms of risk-adjusted returns and cost benefit analyses, so why would I take a human capital risk? My entire business is based on my reputation and I've seen what happens to the people who get comments like "not the best with Jews at conferences" ... I can count on two hands the number of Jews I would feel comfortable giving the exact same feedback to as I would a non-Jew. > I appreciate the effort to think of a better word than antisemitism. My question is, is this even antisemitism at all? How many people can get publicly denounced as “antisemites” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “antisemitic” to be extra careful with how you speak to Jews. > Imagine what it's like being the intended target and not just "collateral damage". It's not a problem that non-Jews are nervous to be candid but it's a problem that Jews are feeling the secondary effects of that?