6 ms·

Opinion is fine. The more opinions the better. But claiming some opinions are verboten or others must be accepted as fact rapidly destroys any historical reput

• cozuya 6y ago
  YES, some opinions are verboten! Opinions that advocate for actively hurting people, that are illegal, should not be hosted by media companies! How is that possibly a bad thing?
  • koolba 6y ago
    Banning opinions for “things that are illegal” would ban everything from discussion about drug legalization to same sex marriage. The current legal status of a topic has no bearing on whether someone can make a cogent argument for or against it. Things that are illegal likely deserve more public forum for thought and discussion.
    • cozuya 6y ago
      This is a glaringly bad faith interpretation of my post. You know what I meant - an op-ed featuring say a pro-pedophilia stance should not be published in a national media. This is not "discussion" or "public forum".
      • patcon 6y ago
        Respectfully, and with kindness not provocation: This "you know what I meant" sensibility, when many people don't know what you mean or simply have very different bedrock views that must first be engaged with and laboured on (if not you, then by someone) -- I feel this is part of the chilling effect of the view you're espousing here, and which others are downvoting you for <3 To clarify, i am not talking about pedophilia here, but other "obvious" things
        • cozuya 6y ago
          Well I can't really agree here, I would think that Occam's Razor for me getting downvoted for saying that "Media companies should not be hosting op-ed articles like 'pedophilia is good'" is pretty clear at least to me. If that's a "chilling view" then, well, ABOLISH ICE. :)
          • patcon 6y ago
            heh we probably disagree on some things (mostly about comms, likely not perspectives tbh), but I appreciate you regardless :)
      • thaumasiotes 6y ago
        >> Banning opinions for “things that are illegal” would ban everything from discussion about drug legalization to same sex marriage. > This is a glaringly bad faith interpretation of my post. You know what I meant - an op-ed featuring say a pro-pedophilia stance should not be published in a national media. I'm really curious how you're distinguishing pro-pedophilia op-eds from pro-same-sex-marriage op-eds. Is it just that one is bad and one is good? How do you know which is which?
        • cozuya 6y ago
          Curious, why should a private company be forced to post op-eds from viewpoints that their editorial board has decided are against their editorial guidelines? What other things should the government force a private company or that matter a citizen to say or not say?
          • cozuya 6y ago
            VERY QURIOUS that there was no response to this Just Asqing Questions QUERY.
            • dang 6y ago
              It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against, because it's not what this site is for. Moreover it destroys what it is for, so we have little choice if we want HN to survive for its intended purpose. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules from now on, we'd be grateful. I'm not banning your account because you fortunately haven't been using HN exclusively for political/ideological flames. But you're far on the wrong side of the "primarily" line: 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....
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• jrockway 6y ago
  > It’s gotten so bad that a the NYT apologized for letting a sitting US Senator (Tom Cotton)[1] publish an op-ed that diverged with the views of its subscribers. I think The Times knows that their revenue comes from people "picking a side", not from people looking for unbiased news. That's because it's easier to cultivate a fanbase than it is to hope that there is interesting news. Most days are boring -- you only get a blockbuster exclusive story once a decade.