4 ms·

Short answer: You don't. Long answer: As soon as a highly emotional topic is under discussion, humans feel like an attack on the idea is an attack upon themsel

Short answer: You don't. Long answer: As soon as a highly emotional topic is under discussion, humans feel like an attack on the idea is an attack upon themselves personally. Once that happens, their higher reasoning gets short-circuited and they begin defending "at all costs", including rationality. The more of an identity-belief it is, the harsher the response. They will say anything, even untrue or unfair things in order to "defeat" their attacker. Pointing out flaws in their reasoning only makes things worse. Bringing up evidence only strengthens their resolve (the backfire effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance). Engaging in a debate while emotions are flying is a fool's errand. Wait for things to calm down first.

baybal2 6y ago
How do you then suggest discussing matters of fact, which are nevertheless still inflammatory? I was completely appealed when I saw an article on Holodomor few month ago being both flagged, and flamewared to death right on Holodomor's remembrance day. To me it very much appeared as a book burning for the sake of "civilized discourse"
- kstenerud 6y ago
  It depends on how important it is to the stakeholders. Anything that generates enough emotion to cause a flamewar isn't going to have intelligent, civilised discussion, so then you have to decide: - As the platform owner, do you want flamewars on your site? - As a participant, do you want to engage in fruitless, emotionally charged discussion that will inevitably go nowhere because of human nature? - Or is the topic too important to ignore? On HN, for example, dang has already made it clear that flamewars will be buried regardless of topic. I can respect that sort of compromise as a defence against the nastier parts of human nature in order to keep the site a step above 4chan and reddit, even if it's not the ideal of fairness.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    The third point. What if a fear of the thread being hijacked by flamewar prevents debating really important topics?

baybal2 6y ago

How do you then suggest discussing matters of fact, which are nevertheless still inflammatory? I was completely appealed when I saw an article on Holodomor few month ago being both flagged, and flamewared to death right on Holodomor's remembrance day. To me it very much appeared as a book burning for the sake of "civilized discourse"

kstenerud 6y ago
It depends on how important it is to the stakeholders. Anything that generates enough emotion to cause a flamewar isn't going to have intelligent, civilised discussion, so then you have to decide: - As the platform owner, do you want flamewars on your site? - As a participant, do you want to engage in fruitless, emotionally charged discussion that will inevitably go nowhere because of human nature? - Or is the topic too important to ignore? On HN, for example, dang has already made it clear that flamewars will be buried regardless of topic. I can respect that sort of compromise as a defence against the nastier parts of human nature in order to keep the site a step above 4chan and reddit, even if it's not the ideal of fairness.
- baybal2 6y ago
  The third point. What if a fear of the thread being hijacked by flamewar prevents debating really important topics?