4 ms·

I still don't see it. > A great showing This part is subjective, so perhaps is the most problematic, but I don't think we normally react negatively to calling

I still don't see it. > A great showing This part is subjective, so perhaps is the most problematic, but I don't think we normally react negatively to calling scientific achievements "great". > for a small, Factual. > socialist Factual (although I would have expected "communist"). > island nation Factual. > under decades of embargo Factual. > by hostile anti-communist I think even pro-embargo folks would be ok with this description. > forces. Small problem here maybe?

pvg 5y ago
It's trivial to write a flame-generating comment made entirely of facts, 'factual' isn't quite the defense against this you might think it is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dang 5y ago
As pvg pointed out, "facts" are a red herring here. You can make non-factual statements that aren't flamewar and you can make factual statements that are. Sticking to "facts" is actually one of the favorite tricks of trolls (I'm not saying anyone was trolling in this case—it's just an instructive example) because then when you say "please don't troll" they can say "what part of my perfectly factual statement do you have a problem with". https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The problem with the flamebait sentence I was objecting to was twofold: (1) it was political rhetoric of precisely the kind you would read in a political publication or hear in a political broadcast, and (2) it took the thread on a generic ideological tangent, that is it replaced the topic of Cuban work on covid vaccines with a much larger, more general, and more inflammatory one. Yes, it's related; the word "tangent" implies that; but that's not enough. It reliably leads to much worse discussion, and predictably did so in this case. I've been trying to explain this to HN for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20black%20hole&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... There's nothing different about the moderation practice in this case—it was utterly routine. But two things were different: (a) I wrote more hastily than I usually do and didn't calibrate my language very well; and (b) something about the specific question of Cuba appears to land differently with HN's internationally distributed community than most subjects do.
- kingofpandora 5y ago
  The items I labelled "Factual" are things like "island" or "small" -- I was very careful about highlighting the possibly controversial parts of that sentence. However, the funny thing is that there was no ideological flame war in response to the comment. Why? Because there was nothing there that anyone even disagrees with or find inflammatory. In fact, the only reactions have been to your (in my opinion) overreaction.
  - dang 5y ago
    > there was no ideological flame war in response to the comment To which comment? If you mean the original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27654110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27654110), that's quite wrong. The flamewar reactions were why I replied in the first place. Some of them are dead and/or collapsed now.

pvg 5y ago

It's trivial to write a flame-generating comment made entirely of facts, 'factual' isn't quite the defense against this you might think it is.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dang 5y ago

As pvg pointed out, "facts" are a red herring here. You can make non-factual statements that aren't flamewar and you can make factual statements that are. Sticking to "facts" is actually one of the favorite tricks of trolls (I'm not saying anyone was trolling in this case—it's just an instructive example) because then when you say "please don't troll" they can say "what part of my perfectly factual statement do you have a problem with". https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The problem with the flamebait sentence I was objecting to was twofold: (1) it was political rhetoric of precisely the kind you would read in a political publication or hear in a political broadcast, and (2) it took the thread on a generic ideological tangent, that is it replaced the topic of Cuban work on covid vaccines with a much larger, more general, and more inflammatory one. Yes, it's related; the word "tangent" implies that; but that's not enough. It reliably leads to much worse discussion, and predictably did so in this case. I've been trying to explain this to HN for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20black%20hole&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... There's nothing different about the moderation practice in this case—it was utterly routine. But two things were different: (a) I wrote more hastily than I usually do and didn't calibrate my language very well; and (b) something about the specific question of Cuba appears to land differently with HN's internationally distributed community than most subjects do.

kingofpandora 5y ago
The items I labelled "Factual" are things like "island" or "small" -- I was very careful about highlighting the possibly controversial parts of that sentence. However, the funny thing is that there was no ideological flame war in response to the comment. Why? Because there was nothing there that anyone even disagrees with or find inflammatory. In fact, the only reactions have been to your (in my opinion) overreaction.
- dang 5y ago
  > there was no ideological flame war in response to the comment To which comment? If you mean the original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27654110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27654110), that's quite wrong. The flamewar reactions were why I replied in the first place. Some of them are dead and/or collapsed now.