4 ms·

[flagged]

dang 5y ago
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and then paste it into the thread to complain about it. That seeds discussion with precisely the worst, most flammable and superficial points. Instead, we (all) need to train ourselves to (a) leave provocations where we encounter them and (b) focus on the genuinely interesting things. Then we have a chance at contributing to a good, interesting forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22most%20provocative%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I agree that conversations get more contentious and less productive when these things are brought up, but if it was a point made in the article it is arguably less productive to discussion to just ignore it and not bring it up at all. We are talking about the article after all, and the article says what it says.
  - dang 5y ago
    With issues like that I always return to the first principle of HN: we're trying to optimize this site for intellectual curiosity (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...). Since that's the overriding value, the answer easily follows: if there's something that gratifies intellectual curiosity in an article, bring that up and let discussion flow from there; if there's nothing that gratifies intellectual curiosity, then the article is off topic and should be flagged. Either way, we should abstain from predictable provocations and tedious flamewars. They may feel intense and exciting for a while but they lead to a degraded and ultimately boring forum. Most articles are a mixed bag: they (hopefully) contain things that can lead to interesting conversation, and they often also contain provocations that will lead to angry, repetitive arguments if amplified. We don't, for example, need yet another generic ideological flamewar. There's no curiosity in those. Therefore, "it's in the article" is not by itself a good reason for bringing something into a thread here. If an article is burning in places, that does not mean that we should import the flames. Seed discussion with the least predictable, most curious aspects of an article, not the ones that point to hell.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      I agree the article should be flagged, it is a low quality article lean on information and insight, it doesn't even offer an interesting perspective.
      - dang 5y ago
        Perhaps we should downweight major media opinion pieces. They seem mostly not to be very good for HN.
- massysett 5y ago
  OK, so this is an honest question - if I didn't know you're a mod, I would argue with you instead. Should I just flag these kinds of posts then, or just completely ignore them? Because honestly, articles like this are just junk. The headline of the article and its entire orientation is around a ridiculous premise. It's not like this was a single provocative thing in the article with the rest of it being filled with interesting nuggets. It's a junk article entirely based around the ridiculous premise that this author's pet preferences are why "everyone" or even why a lot of people are moving to Texas.
  - dang 5y ago
    Correct—if there's nothing that gratifies intellectual curiosity in an article, then it's off topic for HN and should be flagged. On the other hand, if there's a mixture, then you/all of us should focus on what does gratify curiosity and leave the nasty bits and flamey bits where you find them. That takes some restraint, of course, which none of us is used to on the internet, but it's the way to have the forum we all actually want HN to be. Nobody wants scorched earth—that's the ultimate boring endstate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20scorched%20earth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29363505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29363505

[flagged]

dang 5y ago

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and then paste it into the thread to complain about it. That seeds discussion with precisely the worst, most flammable and superficial points. Instead, we (all) need to train ourselves to (a) leave provocations where we encounter them and (b) focus on the genuinely interesting things. Then we have a chance at contributing to a good, interesting forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22most%20provocative%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

betwixthewires 5y ago
I agree that conversations get more contentious and less productive when these things are brought up, but if it was a point made in the article it is arguably less productive to discussion to just ignore it and not bring it up at all. We are talking about the article after all, and the article says what it says.
- dang 5y ago
  With issues like that I always return to the first principle of HN: we're trying to optimize this site for intellectual curiosity (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...). Since that's the overriding value, the answer easily follows: if there's something that gratifies intellectual curiosity in an article, bring that up and let discussion flow from there; if there's nothing that gratifies intellectual curiosity, then the article is off topic and should be flagged. Either way, we should abstain from predictable provocations and tedious flamewars. They may feel intense and exciting for a while but they lead to a degraded and ultimately boring forum. Most articles are a mixed bag: they (hopefully) contain things that can lead to interesting conversation, and they often also contain provocations that will lead to angry, repetitive arguments if amplified. We don't, for example, need yet another generic ideological flamewar. There's no curiosity in those. Therefore, "it's in the article" is not by itself a good reason for bringing something into a thread here. If an article is burning in places, that does not mean that we should import the flames. Seed discussion with the least predictable, most curious aspects of an article, not the ones that point to hell.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I agree the article should be flagged, it is a low quality article lean on information and insight, it doesn't even offer an interesting perspective.
    - dang 5y ago
      Perhaps we should downweight major media opinion pieces. They seem mostly not to be very good for HN.
massysett 5y ago
OK, so this is an honest question - if I didn't know you're a mod, I would argue with you instead. Should I just flag these kinds of posts then, or just completely ignore them? Because honestly, articles like this are just junk. The headline of the article and its entire orientation is around a ridiculous premise. It's not like this was a single provocative thing in the article with the rest of it being filled with interesting nuggets. It's a junk article entirely based around the ridiculous premise that this author's pet preferences are why "everyone" or even why a lot of people are moving to Texas.
- dang 5y ago
  Correct—if there's nothing that gratifies intellectual curiosity in an article, then it's off topic for HN and should be flagged. On the other hand, if there's a mixture, then you/all of us should focus on what does gratify curiosity and leave the nasty bits and flamey bits where you find them. That takes some restraint, of course, which none of us is used to on the internet, but it's the way to have the forum we all actually want HN to be. Nobody wants scorched earth—that's the ultimate boring endstate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20scorched%20earth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29363505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29363505