6 ms·

King did not call for calm, in fact often the opposite. Here's a quote from him: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tens

King did not call for calm, in fact often the opposite. Here's a quote from him: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. . . . I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’” King was non-violent, but he did not avoid conflict. King regularly called on people to break laws because they were unjust. He specifically called for increasing tensions. And he was called an 'agitator'. He specifically chose not to condemn riots: “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.” And he famously objected to calls for calm and order: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” Edit: Removed my judgement of the parent poster's understanding of King from the comment.

dang 5y ago
Please make your substantive points without putting down your fellow user. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: the sentence I was reacting to was "You do not have a good understanding of King's work." Since it has been edited out now, I'm going to mark this subthread off topic and collapse it.
- AaronFriel 5y ago
  The claim seems factually accurate and supported. We wouldn't consider an expert saying "you don't understand transformer ML models" with quotes supporting that claim, as being putting down the user, no? I often read technical conversations on HN in which one user tells another they don't have an accurate understanding of some topic. Just because it's a historical or cultural matter doesn't mean it's ad hominem to state plainly and dispassionately that someone lacks understanding.
  - dang 5y ago
    It's just the same when the topic is ML models. HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. There's no need to comment pejoratively on the other person. The post is stronger without it, and the expected value of such swipes, in terms of the impact they have on subsequent discussion, is sharply negative.
    - jancsika 5y ago
      > HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. Moderation appears highly selective. E.g., "This argument is clownish and we should be embarrassed it's on the front page."[1] That is the top comment for that post, but I don't notice your reminder there about pejorative comments. If I had to rankly speculate, I'd say moderation happens consistently on topics where the average HN user tends to have a low level of knowledge (unionization, civil rights history), and less consistently for topics where there is a greater probability of a critical mass of participants with domain expertise (digital security). I also rankly speculate that you don't state this outright to prevent the tinder fire that would result from making users aware of their own lack of knowledge on the topics more likely to be moderated.
      - pvg 5y ago
        Moderators can't see everything and HN doesn't operate under some 'no negative comments, ever, at all' ruleset. It's one thing to point out, in some detail, that the argument in a particular article is very poor, it's a completely different thing to directly attack another user. Just like anyone is free to write clownish, provocative invective on their blog, people can point out its nature when it pops up on HN - especially when the main reason it does is its clownish provocativeness in the first place. You could always flag and/or email the moderators if you think something needs a further look, though.
      - dang 5y ago
        Moderation always appears highly selective no matter what - this is a psychological inevitability (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). The truth is far more boring than your speculation, which I suppose is a consistent problem with speculation. We moderate guideline breakage when we see it. Moderation is inconsistent because we don't see everything (as pvg already pointed out). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... There's also some selection involved, but it's more along the lines of "do I have the energy to make a post about this one", "am I prepared to deal with howls of protest in this case", and "is it borderline enough to just let go".
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  What would be the ideal "HN-friendly" way to point out that the parent does have serious misunderstandings of the topic at hand? I'm struggling to parse that first sentence in a way that someone would be offended by.
  - dang 5y ago
    The ideal way would be to simply omit that sentence. If the comment began with the sentence "King did not [etc.]", it would have exactly the same information content and would not contain a personal swipe at the other user. Win-win.
  - Igelau 5y ago
    It's essentially flamebait. > You don't understand blah, here's a quote! is quickly followed by > No, YOU don't understand blah, here's my quote! It's not offensive, but it's a subtle bit of rhetorical judo to rile somebody up. And in a political thread that's probably going to get locked in 10 minutes anyway because it's got other flame wars going on.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    Use "I" phrasings. Instead of "You think X, where X is wrong", say, "I think Y." Describe Y in detail, contrasting it with X where necessary but not making the wrongness of X the point. The original poster may well see that as talking about them and reply in the usual flamebait way -- possibly with an extra dig for failing to engage them or trying to hide it. That's the risk you take when arguing on the Internet. But if everybody really is interested in discussion rather than arguing, it sets up a reply more along the lines of trying to merge X and Y, or even changing their minds, or other constructive behavior. It starts with making it about the issues and a clear understanding of how different viewpoints lead to different conclusions based on the same facts -- all of the facts, not just the ones that support your arguments and diminish theirs.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  Sure. It wasn't meant to be pejorative, just factual. Your comments in this thread make sense though. Would a "This is a commonly held misconception about King" be more appropriate?
  - dang 5y ago
    It would! Thanks for the kind reply.
    - Pfhreak 5y ago
      No problem. I assume the last sentence of the parent comment is likewise over the line for similar reasons? "So I guess you must think they didn't suffer?"
      - dang 5y ago
        Yes, that was also a swipe and should also have been omitted. Especially because it clearly broke this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
re 5y ago
> He specifically chose not to condemn riots No, he explicitly did. Even in the full context of the famous "language of the unheard" quote it is clear he is criticizing both riots (as being counterproductive) and the conditions that led to them. Here's a another quote from him: > Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way. https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.html https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.h... The seeming national debate that one either must be pro-riot or pro-status quo/"law and order" is another instance of unnecessary "culture war" divisiveness and one that Dr. King would have disagreed with.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  I think your reading is more correct, I can no longer update my comment.
  - jwarden 5y ago
    I wish more people would do what you just did here: State an opinion, get feedback, adjust their opinion. I wish HN and other social sites gave you the ability to update your comment at least with an indication that you no longer stand by it.

dang 5y ago

Please make your substantive points without putting down your fellow user. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: the sentence I was reacting to was "You do not have a good understanding of King's work." Since it has been edited out now, I'm going to mark this subthread off topic and collapse it.

AaronFriel 5y ago
The claim seems factually accurate and supported. We wouldn't consider an expert saying "you don't understand transformer ML models" with quotes supporting that claim, as being putting down the user, no? I often read technical conversations on HN in which one user tells another they don't have an accurate understanding of some topic. Just because it's a historical or cultural matter doesn't mean it's ad hominem to state plainly and dispassionately that someone lacks understanding.
- dang 5y ago
  It's just the same when the topic is ML models. HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. There's no need to comment pejoratively on the other person. The post is stronger without it, and the expected value of such swipes, in terms of the impact they have on subsequent discussion, is sharply negative.
  - jancsika 5y ago
    > HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. Moderation appears highly selective. E.g., "This argument is clownish and we should be embarrassed it's on the front page."[1] That is the top comment for that post, but I don't notice your reminder there about pejorative comments. If I had to rankly speculate, I'd say moderation happens consistently on topics where the average HN user tends to have a low level of knowledge (unionization, civil rights history), and less consistently for topics where there is a greater probability of a critical mass of participants with domain expertise (digital security). I also rankly speculate that you don't state this outright to prevent the tinder fire that would result from making users aware of their own lack of knowledge on the topics more likely to be moderated.
    - pvg 5y ago
      Moderators can't see everything and HN doesn't operate under some 'no negative comments, ever, at all' ruleset. It's one thing to point out, in some detail, that the argument in a particular article is very poor, it's a completely different thing to directly attack another user. Just like anyone is free to write clownish, provocative invective on their blog, people can point out its nature when it pops up on HN - especially when the main reason it does is its clownish provocativeness in the first place. You could always flag and/or email the moderators if you think something needs a further look, though.
    - dang 5y ago
      Moderation always appears highly selective no matter what - this is a psychological inevitability (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). The truth is far more boring than your speculation, which I suppose is a consistent problem with speculation. We moderate guideline breakage when we see it. Moderation is inconsistent because we don't see everything (as pvg already pointed out). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... There's also some selection involved, but it's more along the lines of "do I have the energy to make a post about this one", "am I prepared to deal with howls of protest in this case", and "is it borderline enough to just let go".
objectivetruth 5y ago
What would be the ideal "HN-friendly" way to point out that the parent does have serious misunderstandings of the topic at hand? I'm struggling to parse that first sentence in a way that someone would be offended by.
- dang 5y ago
  The ideal way would be to simply omit that sentence. If the comment began with the sentence "King did not [etc.]", it would have exactly the same information content and would not contain a personal swipe at the other user. Win-win.
- Igelau 5y ago
  It's essentially flamebait. > You don't understand blah, here's a quote! is quickly followed by > No, YOU don't understand blah, here's my quote! It's not offensive, but it's a subtle bit of rhetorical judo to rile somebody up. And in a political thread that's probably going to get locked in 10 minutes anyway because it's got other flame wars going on.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Use "I" phrasings. Instead of "You think X, where X is wrong", say, "I think Y." Describe Y in detail, contrasting it with X where necessary but not making the wrongness of X the point. The original poster may well see that as talking about them and reply in the usual flamebait way -- possibly with an extra dig for failing to engage them or trying to hide it. That's the risk you take when arguing on the Internet. But if everybody really is interested in discussion rather than arguing, it sets up a reply more along the lines of trying to merge X and Y, or even changing their minds, or other constructive behavior. It starts with making it about the issues and a clear understanding of how different viewpoints lead to different conclusions based on the same facts -- all of the facts, not just the ones that support your arguments and diminish theirs.
Pfhreak 5y ago
Sure. It wasn't meant to be pejorative, just factual. Your comments in this thread make sense though. Would a "This is a commonly held misconception about King" be more appropriate?
- dang 5y ago
  It would! Thanks for the kind reply.
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    No problem. I assume the last sentence of the parent comment is likewise over the line for similar reasons? "So I guess you must think they didn't suffer?"
    - dang 5y ago
      Yes, that was also a swipe and should also have been omitted. Especially because it clearly broke this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

re 5y ago

> He specifically chose not to condemn riots No, he explicitly did. Even in the full context of the famous "language of the unheard" quote it is clear he is criticizing both riots (as being counterproductive) and the conditions that led to them. Here's a another quote from him: > Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way. https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.html https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.h... The seeming national debate that one either must be pro-riot or pro-status quo/"law and order" is another instance of unnecessary "culture war" divisiveness and one that Dr. King would have disagreed with.

Pfhreak 5y ago
I think your reading is more correct, I can no longer update my comment.
- jwarden 5y ago
  I wish more people would do what you just did here: State an opinion, get feedback, adjust their opinion. I wish HN and other social sites gave you the ability to update your comment at least with an indication that you no longer stand by it.