5 ms·

The irony is that HN posters are vehemently against social media, particularly FB. The reasons I’ve read are all about the general negativity, pessimism, false

The irony is that HN posters are vehemently against social media, particularly FB. The reasons I’ve read are all about the general negativity, pessimism, false information, etc. While HN submissions are generally held to a higher standard, the general comments/discussions are equally toxic. Apparently FB is such a cancer and everyone else is such a problem - but we’re actually part of the problem.

throwntoday 5y ago
I genuinely don't get what civil discourse is supposed to achieve. Discourse should be no holds barred. If your points can't stand unfiltered scrutiny maybe they're not as solid as you think. I consider HN somewhere between 4chan and reddit. People here are actually smart (unlike reddit, which appears to attract angsty teenagers more than anything) and willing to engage in discussions outside of the status quo. It's not the chaotic jungle of 4chan, but if you're talking out of your ass people here are too clever to fall for it and you will be called out. On reddit if something sounds right to enough people who know nothing at all about said topic, it will get upvoted to the top where more people will absorb blatantly false information or self-fellating, pandering opinion.
- nusaru 5y ago
  > I genuinely don't get what civil discourse is supposed to achieve. I could be wrong but I think the purpose of being civil is so that people will actually want to talk to you.
  - williamtrask 5y ago
    Also logic is easier for humans to parse with everyone (the writer and the reader) helping to filter out distracting emotional cruft.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Richard Hanania had some interesting comments about this ( https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/reflections-on-2021 https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/reflections-on-2021 ) > When I’m on Twitter, how rude should I be? > I tend to admire thinkers who are civil and think less of those who are rude. Usually, I try to emulate those I admire and not those I don’t, but I actually think there’s an intellectual case to be made for rudeness and snark as long as it’s used in defense of worthy ideas instead of tribalism or self-aggrandizement (maybe a topic for a future Substack). One thing that used to bother me about academia was how someone would have a critique of a research project that completely discredited it, but nobody would actually follow the argument to its logical conclusion and say the research was therefore worthless and the author should go do something else. We as a society would be better off valuing being correct more and being civil less. Maybe you would ideally want both, but I suspect that there’s actually a tradeoff, as people who tend to be right about a lot are often jerks, and academics who are wrong about everything always seem to be complimenting each other for being stunning and brave (see #HighlightingWomen and #WomenAlsoKnowStuff). Economics is less crazy than other disciplines, and now there are female academics complaining that the field is too mean, which to me seems necessary to trim bad ideas. So I’m sort of a fan of incivility and rudeness, but also thinking carefully about how to make snark constructive (I’m aware this could all be motivated reasoning and I just enjoy insulting people). Another consideration is that people usually say that movements do better when they’re polite, so I may be harming the prospects of the views I advocate for. This always struck me as a belief rooted in social desirability bias, a kind of “nice guys finish first” philosophy. The woke are the most aggressive and least civil and tolerant political faction in the country, and they seem to have had the biggest political impact in the last few years. Trump supporters are the rudest people on the right, and they’re wining on their side. So why do we think civility is good for a movement? Like using Twitter though, this is one of those things where it’s easy to see the benefits while the costs are hidden.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    It’s hard to get someone to not only change their mind, but openly agree with you that they are wrong and you are right, if they hate your guts. I’m always perfectly happy to change my opinion when discussing things civilly, but I’d never admit I was wrong to an asshole.
- batch12 5y ago
  I prefer civility so we can try to have a discussion free of distractions.
nverno 5y ago
Skepticism is a far cry from general negativity and pessimism. The relative scarcity of ad hominem attacks on HN is one of the most notable differences to other popular message boards. Personally, I appreciate the open attack on ideas and source credibility, and don't find it toxic at all.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  There aren't ad hominem attacks between individual posters, but individual topics/subjects are attacked all the time. The most frequent one I've seen is either some political group or companies/employers. If you go off of HN comments, FB, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. are all "evil" and terrible companies run by insidious people that want to steal your information, take all your money, and turn us all into mindless slaves.
wayoutthere 5y ago
HN is just heavily moderated. It’s the same dumpster fire as the rest of the internet, just with dang’s yay/nay filter applied.
- grapescheesee 5y ago
  It also is important to point out how much self censorship exist on HN. It can be interpreted as tact, group think, civility, and so on. Personal restraint has vanished more and more in the last few years. Many here would argue it is a result of social media platforms.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    I know I don’t self-censor (which has gotten me a scolding and some comments removed) so it’s not just self-censorship. I don’t begrudge it because all moderation is necessarily editorial, just realize what HN is and who owns it.

throwntoday 5y ago

I genuinely don't get what civil discourse is supposed to achieve. Discourse should be no holds barred. If your points can't stand unfiltered scrutiny maybe they're not as solid as you think. I consider HN somewhere between 4chan and reddit. People here are actually smart (unlike reddit, which appears to attract angsty teenagers more than anything) and willing to engage in discussions outside of the status quo. It's not the chaotic jungle of 4chan, but if you're talking out of your ass people here are too clever to fall for it and you will be called out. On reddit if something sounds right to enough people who know nothing at all about said topic, it will get upvoted to the top where more people will absorb blatantly false information or self-fellating, pandering opinion.

nusaru 5y ago
> I genuinely don't get what civil discourse is supposed to achieve. I could be wrong but I think the purpose of being civil is so that people will actually want to talk to you.
- williamtrask 5y ago
  Also logic is easier for humans to parse with everyone (the writer and the reader) helping to filter out distracting emotional cruft.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 5y ago
Richard Hanania had some interesting comments about this ( https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/reflections-on-2021 https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/reflections-on-2021 ) > When I’m on Twitter, how rude should I be? > I tend to admire thinkers who are civil and think less of those who are rude. Usually, I try to emulate those I admire and not those I don’t, but I actually think there’s an intellectual case to be made for rudeness and snark as long as it’s used in defense of worthy ideas instead of tribalism or self-aggrandizement (maybe a topic for a future Substack). One thing that used to bother me about academia was how someone would have a critique of a research project that completely discredited it, but nobody would actually follow the argument to its logical conclusion and say the research was therefore worthless and the author should go do something else. We as a society would be better off valuing being correct more and being civil less. Maybe you would ideally want both, but I suspect that there’s actually a tradeoff, as people who tend to be right about a lot are often jerks, and academics who are wrong about everything always seem to be complimenting each other for being stunning and brave (see #HighlightingWomen and #WomenAlsoKnowStuff). Economics is less crazy than other disciplines, and now there are female academics complaining that the field is too mean, which to me seems necessary to trim bad ideas. So I’m sort of a fan of incivility and rudeness, but also thinking carefully about how to make snark constructive (I’m aware this could all be motivated reasoning and I just enjoy insulting people). Another consideration is that people usually say that movements do better when they’re polite, so I may be harming the prospects of the views I advocate for. This always struck me as a belief rooted in social desirability bias, a kind of “nice guys finish first” philosophy. The woke are the most aggressive and least civil and tolerant political faction in the country, and they seem to have had the biggest political impact in the last few years. Trump supporters are the rudest people on the right, and they’re wining on their side. So why do we think civility is good for a movement? Like using Twitter though, this is one of those things where it’s easy to see the benefits while the costs are hidden.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  It’s hard to get someone to not only change their mind, but openly agree with you that they are wrong and you are right, if they hate your guts. I’m always perfectly happy to change my opinion when discussing things civilly, but I’d never admit I was wrong to an asshole.
batch12 5y ago
I prefer civility so we can try to have a discussion free of distractions.

nverno 5y ago

Skepticism is a far cry from general negativity and pessimism. The relative scarcity of ad hominem attacks on HN is one of the most notable differences to other popular message boards. Personally, I appreciate the open attack on ideas and source credibility, and don't find it toxic at all.

ozzythecat 5y ago
There aren't ad hominem attacks between individual posters, but individual topics/subjects are attacked all the time. The most frequent one I've seen is either some political group or companies/employers. If you go off of HN comments, FB, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. are all "evil" and terrible companies run by insidious people that want to steal your information, take all your money, and turn us all into mindless slaves.

wayoutthere 5y ago

HN is just heavily moderated. It’s the same dumpster fire as the rest of the internet, just with dang’s yay/nay filter applied.

grapescheesee 5y ago
It also is important to point out how much self censorship exist on HN. It can be interpreted as tact, group think, civility, and so on. Personal restraint has vanished more and more in the last few years. Many here would argue it is a result of social media platforms.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  I know I don’t self-censor (which has gotten me a scolding and some comments removed) so it’s not just self-censorship. I don’t begrudge it because all moderation is necessarily editorial, just realize what HN is and who owns it.