3 ms·
Could you clarify which part of the comment qualifies as a "flamewar", so I can avoid doing so in the future? Is it simply the editorializing about being "revol
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Could you clarify which part of the comment qualifies as a "flamewar", so I can avoid doing so in the future? Is it simply the editorializing about being "revolting and dehumanizing", or is there an issue with the semantic content of the comment?
I'm not asking this to be difficult, but just want to understand where the bounds here are. I don't have any interest into getting drawn into irrelevant culture-warring, but discussion of society's downplaying of female abusers seems centrally relevant to a thread entitled "Boys in Custody and the Women Who Abuse Them".
- dang 5y agoGeneric ideological disputes like this subthread already are off-topic for HN because they're predictable, tedious, and usually turn nasty. 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... I would say what crosses the line into flamewar is when it's combined with denunciatory language. What you posted wasn't nearly as bad as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350724, but "I'm soundly rejecting this framing; in fact, I find it utterly revolting and dehumanizing" definitely counts, and in any case it takes two to tango. The proper thing for this entire subthread would have been to flag it at the root (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350724 - yes I know that was posted by someone else) and move on.
- wutbrodo 5y agoAlright, thanks for clarifying!