4 ms·

Its interesting that you didn't actually tell the poster what they did wrong.

zozbot234 5y ago
I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.
- dang 5y ago
  As I read it, your comment fit the genre of boilerplate ideological rhetoric and that is the last thing we need here.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    OK, I'll just agree to disagree then. I understand that boilerplate ideological rhetoric is an unavoidable hazard in a thread about gender issues (or indeed, politics more generally) and I'll keep trying to write comments that are as far as possible from any 'boilerplate'.
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      it seems like you need to study ideological boilerplate and then constrain your opinions to what is acceptable here at hn. I wonder if dang could point us to a reference of ideological boilerplate to be avoided, or if its just supposed to be something "we should know."
      - dang 5y ago
        By "ideological boilerplate" I mean repetitive ideological points, the kind that people repeat over and over again to bludgeon their enemies with in internet battles. That's the opposite of the discussion we want here. What we want is people listening to each other, taking in the specifics of what they have to say, and then responding with something that they haven't thought or said before—let alone a thousand times before. Conversation should be a co-creation between mutually respecting equals. When done well, it is always new. This follows from the core principle of HN, namely curiosity [1], because curiosity withers under repetition [2]. Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20enemies%20smit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        a_conservative 5y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to write that out dang.
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    You are getting close to criticizing posters for "wrongthink" dressing it up under the term "boilerplate ideological rhetoric" doesn't change anything.
    - dang 5y ago
      That's easily disproven: HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them. Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel. p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See 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... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
      - a_conservative 5y ago
        > HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them. It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive? I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning

I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.

dang 5y ago
As I read it, your comment fit the genre of boilerplate ideological rhetoric and that is the last thing we need here.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  OK, I'll just agree to disagree then. I understand that boilerplate ideological rhetoric is an unavoidable hazard in a thread about gender issues (or indeed, politics more generally) and I'll keep trying to write comments that are as far as possible from any 'boilerplate'.
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    it seems like you need to study ideological boilerplate and then constrain your opinions to what is acceptable here at hn. I wonder if dang could point us to a reference of ideological boilerplate to be avoided, or if its just supposed to be something "we should know."
    - dang 5y ago
      By "ideological boilerplate" I mean repetitive ideological points, the kind that people repeat over and over again to bludgeon their enemies with in internet battles. That's the opposite of the discussion we want here. What we want is people listening to each other, taking in the specifics of what they have to say, and then responding with something that they haven't thought or said before—let alone a thousand times before. Conversation should be a co-creation between mutually respecting equals. When done well, it is always new. This follows from the core principle of HN, namely curiosity [1], because curiosity withers under repetition [2]. Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20enemies%20smit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
      - a_conservative 5y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to write that out dang.
- a_conservative 5y ago
  You are getting close to criticizing posters for "wrongthink" dressing it up under the term "boilerplate ideological rhetoric" doesn't change anything.
  - dang 5y ago
    That's easily disproven: HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them. Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel. p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See 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... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      > HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them. It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive? I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning