6 ms·
Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his
by monoideism 5y ago
Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his comment really well, and using abusive language only diminishes your response.
If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults).
If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments.
PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.
- tomerico 5y agoI agree that the tone of replies matter, but flagging comments spreading misinformation seems like a positive thing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Klinky 5y agoIt's not a different belief, it was a flat out lie and spreading of misinformation, their own source doesn't even back them up. Stop pushing a narrative that misinformation should be "equally considered" or is "just another point of view".
- monoideism 5y agoThis is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence. I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them. And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.
- Klinky 5y agoIf you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.
- monoideism 5y agoQuestion? Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting. Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]? Nope 1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.
- Klinky 5y agoI don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend the opinion of a throwaway account posting inaccurate information its own cited source refutes. These alternative viewpoints need to have some level of credibility to them, we should not defend every rando's opinion blindly. I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself. How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy". 1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompoppertoroveandback https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...
- andrew_ 5y ago"misinformation" is the rallying cry of those who wish to suppress speech, even if that speech is patently false. Enough with the Gestapo tactics. Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.
- Klinky 5y ago>Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information. That's exactly what the person replying did.
- cycomanic 5y agoI'm sure you you would agree that there are limits. Or what would you say if someone here started to create throwaway accounts spreading persinal lies about you? Would you still argue that it's enough to just correct those lies? What about if the person isn't just a single person but a group. Also, I hope you do realise the irony of arguing by calling someone's opinion gestapo tactics.