4 ms·

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 a

by 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?

dang 6y ago
I'm overwhelmed by the quantity of comments here. I don't have a chance of even seeing them all, let alone read them all, let alone patiently and painstakingly moderate them all. One reason for that (today) is that I've been writing long, careful replies to you in the hope of explaining the kind of comments we're looking for here and why we need you to eschew gratutitous provocation. In response, you made a bunch of quotes in which you replaced the word "women" with "Jews". I just spent several minutes trying to track down those comments before I realized that you were pulling that trick. I'm really shocked that you would stoop to that. The flamewar trope "I'm going to replace $group1 with $group2 just to show how $xist your comment is" is one of the most common. Usually it's people on the other ideological side who do that, and often garden-variety trolls. It is a strong marker of cheap flamewar and a good example of how the ideological enemies who perpetuate these flamewars actually resemble each other more than they do anyone else.
- pron 6y ago
  Maybe, but right now I can't think of another way of showing how illegitimate it is to have a discussion over how best to treat a discriminated group of people, especially when when that group is so underrepresented on this forum. There is just no right way to have this discussion at all. If discussions on a tech forum look like they're minutes from a men's rights group meeting, then that's a huge problem.
  - dang 6y ago
    If you can't think of another way than altering quotes for shock value, that may be because your view of the thread and the community is not actually accurate. I've looked again, and I don't think your description is fair. The OP seems to me legitimate; painful, but not gratuitous. As for the thread, many of the comments are thoughtful. I don't agree with or like all of them—or most of them, actually—but I think you're misassessing the amount of bad faith in the community. That's a big deal because, as I tried to explain above, it takes people to a why-bother/fuck-it place, from which they end up creating the very thing they were deploring. It's unfortunately all too easy and common for people to mistake a divided community for a "putrid horror show", dominated by demons [1] or, as the internet likes to call them, "terrible persons", when in reality most people here just have different backgrounds and experiences from one another [2]. I'm not saying that's the only factor—anyone can scan my moderation comments in this thread to find examples to the contrary (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613942). But I still think the HN guidelines are right to say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." ...and I think that if you took that guideline more to heart, you might see the bulk of the thread differently. (I don't mean the long tail of trolls and flames—those are always with us.) [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=demons%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
    - pvg 6y ago
      Hang on, do you mean the comment that started this is 'painful but not gratuitous'? Because: This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. Seems pretty clearly gratuitous flamebait. Oppression hierarchy? We're heading to where nobody can frankly speak to anyone? This is 'first they came', in different words and is equally cheap and dumb.
skjfdoslifjeifj 6y ago
> There is a great moderation tool for such a discussion: not to have it Do you honestly think the situation improves if the discussion is censored here? Whether you like it or not these industry discussions, and much worse, are happening elsewhere and censoring relatively timid discussions like this only makes matters worse. There are 490 comments at the time of this post and I'd bet the vast majority of them are relatively benign.
- pron 6y ago
  Absolutely. Respectable media platforms and discussion forums have always "censored" some topics (if by that you mean that they've chosen to exercise their freedom of speech to choose what they deem worthy of publication); that's precisely the one thing that separates them from unrespectable ones. Right now there are a lot of discussions going on about blacks or Jews, but that doesn't mean a respectable forum should lend the subject legitimacy by hosting it.

by pron 6y ago

dang 6y ago

I'm overwhelmed by the quantity of comments here. I don't have a chance of even seeing them all, let alone read them all, let alone patiently and painstakingly moderate them all. One reason for that (today) is that I've been writing long, careful replies to you in the hope of explaining the kind of comments we're looking for here and why we need you to eschew gratutitous provocation. In response, you made a bunch of quotes in which you replaced the word "women" with "Jews". I just spent several minutes trying to track down those comments before I realized that you were pulling that trick. I'm really shocked that you would stoop to that. The flamewar trope "I'm going to replace $group1 with $group2 just to show how $xist your comment is" is one of the most common. Usually it's people on the other ideological side who do that, and often garden-variety trolls. It is a strong marker of cheap flamewar and a good example of how the ideological enemies who perpetuate these flamewars actually resemble each other more than they do anyone else.

pron 6y ago
Maybe, but right now I can't think of another way of showing how illegitimate it is to have a discussion over how best to treat a discriminated group of people, especially when when that group is so underrepresented on this forum. There is just no right way to have this discussion at all. If discussions on a tech forum look like they're minutes from a men's rights group meeting, then that's a huge problem.
- dang 6y ago
  If you can't think of another way than altering quotes for shock value, that may be because your view of the thread and the community is not actually accurate. I've looked again, and I don't think your description is fair. The OP seems to me legitimate; painful, but not gratuitous. As for the thread, many of the comments are thoughtful. I don't agree with or like all of them—or most of them, actually—but I think you're misassessing the amount of bad faith in the community. That's a big deal because, as I tried to explain above, it takes people to a why-bother/fuck-it place, from which they end up creating the very thing they were deploring. It's unfortunately all too easy and common for people to mistake a divided community for a "putrid horror show", dominated by demons [1] or, as the internet likes to call them, "terrible persons", when in reality most people here just have different backgrounds and experiences from one another [2]. I'm not saying that's the only factor—anyone can scan my moderation comments in this thread to find examples to the contrary (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613942). But I still think the HN guidelines are right to say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." ...and I think that if you took that guideline more to heart, you might see the bulk of the thread differently. (I don't mean the long tail of trolls and flames—those are always with us.) [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=demons%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
  - pvg 6y ago
    Hang on, do you mean the comment that started this is 'painful but not gratuitous'? Because: This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. Seems pretty clearly gratuitous flamebait. Oppression hierarchy? We're heading to where nobody can frankly speak to anyone? This is 'first they came', in different words and is equally cheap and dumb.

skjfdoslifjeifj 6y ago

> There is a great moderation tool for such a discussion: not to have it Do you honestly think the situation improves if the discussion is censored here? Whether you like it or not these industry discussions, and much worse, are happening elsewhere and censoring relatively timid discussions like this only makes matters worse. There are 490 comments at the time of this post and I'd bet the vast majority of them are relatively benign.

pron 6y ago
Absolutely. Respectable media platforms and discussion forums have always "censored" some topics (if by that you mean that they've chosen to exercise their freedom of speech to choose what they deem worthy of publication); that's precisely the one thing that separates them from unrespectable ones. Right now there are a lot of discussions going on about blacks or Jews, but that doesn't mean a respectable forum should lend the subject legitimacy by hosting it.