5 ms·

> Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN You mean exclusion of moderate to rig

> Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN You mean exclusion of moderate to right leaning opinions right? That's my experience. If not (or even if so), I've seen lots of discussion on HN where everyone thinks their pet viewpoint is getting unduly picked on. That's probably as good a sign of neutrality as one can find (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral) Edit: maybe I'm misunderstanding the replies but my point is that many people seems to feel like the overall forum sentiment is against them. I'm not saying HN has a demonstrable left-wing bias. People seem to be trying to refute that for some reason

rectang 5y ago
Well, I would like it if I could participate in a forum where "women are genetically predisposed to be less ambitious than men" is not a constant theme of debate. Having that debate drives away women. I don't know if that's the kind of "right-leaning opinion" you're talking about, but if it is, I would rather that we were divided into two silos: one silo where people talk about how women are not ambitious, and one silo with women.
- sacrosancty 5y ago
  I think there are plenty of forums where vulnerable people are shielded from uncomfortable ideas. And there are plenty where open exploration of ideas happens. The internet is decentralized enough that everyone can be satisfied already. I don't see what needs fixing. I wonder, are there predominantly female areas of society where members often worry about how their rules drive away men? Are nurses afraid to talk about men's propensity to not be caring in case it scares them off?
  - rectang 5y ago
    A lot of the most provocative conversations I've read have been in siloed forums, where people are not constantly getting shouted down and interrupted and can actually string together coherent lines of thought. I would like it very much if Radiopaper's approach, or some variant of it, made it possible to actually have a more enriching exploration of ideas.
  - aidanhs 5y ago
    In the concrete context of the post you're replying to, you seem to be saying that women are 'vulnerable people'? I'd suggest picking a definition of 'vulnerable people' that doesn't mean pushing away half the world's population. (I'm also a little bemused at your implication of what an 'uncomfortable idea' is, as well as the implication that hackernews is the right place for this, as well as the assertion that you can fragment social networks to satisfy people while ignoring the effects of critical mass - but there's too much to unpack) Your second paragraph is irrelevant in this thread (which discusses HN specifically).
    - incompatible 5y ago
      Uncomfortable ideas, for vulnerable people, I guess would be the kinds of ideas that make them vulnerable in the first place. E.g., that same-sex relationships are against God or against the natural order of things, or that women should naturally be subservient to men, or only have themselves to blame for sexual violence. I've heard that there are forums on the Internet where such ideas are explored freely. Edit: A forum that bans discussions like that, will probably be seen as left-leaning by some.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - sacrosancty 4y ago
        That's just obscure political correctness. I'd say it's far more often people who lack emotional maturity or self confidence and have any of all sorts of common insecurities that they don't want to be reminded of. Imagine being called an idiot when you actually have a low IQ? It hurts and it's far more common than being gay in Pakistan or whatever.
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      The person I was replying to seemed to want protected forums where women could be shielded from uncomfortable ideas. I was just saying that we already have those, as well as not those. Everyone's satisfied. As for network effects, small forums still exist and serve people fine. You don't actually have to be on Twitter or HN to interact with people that you prefer.
- LightHugger 5y ago
  This is rarely possible on the internet but the ideal forum for me would be one where people could discuss the details of genetic predispositions with the understanding that it generally shouldn't change how people should behave. Like, say one day that a very well researched finding comes out and proves that men are predisposed to be more violent, in reference to higher incarceration rates. Should it change how you treat other people, once it has been reasonably proven as fact? I think not. The choice that someone makes to discriminate against a group based on statistical realities does not depend in the slightest on whether those facts are true. People easily pretend they are true if they are not, and if they are true it doesn't justify discrimination in the end either way! Unfortunately these arguments seem to often end up just being in service of a goal like justifying discrimination, and when they aren't, certain others will show up to accuse the person of that even if not true. Sigh.
no-dr-onboard 5y ago
I’ve actually seen the opposite ime. Anecdotal, but I’ve told my wife at least 3-4 times about how shocked I’ve been that conservative talking points have been received well on this platform. The wuhan lab leak theory, commentary on undue censorship, predatory DIB/HR practices, moving out of costal areas to seek more sane people groups, and so on. I’m often surprised that there are centrists and right leaning people on this platform considering that the current media narrative would insist that we are all some degree of leftist.
- woojoo666 5y ago
  Would you consider yourself left-leaning by any chance? I wonder if its a perspective thing, because from what I've seen discussions seem pretty balanced towards both sides. I saw the wuhan lab theory post that I think you're talking about. But I've also seen a ton of posts and comments recently calling for increased land/property taxes
  - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
    No friend, on the contrary. I’d describe myself as a theonomic libertarian. A religious extremist by the standards of most people.
    - woojoo666 5y ago
      That's an interesting combination for sure, I'll have to look more into it!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 5y ago
    > wuhan lab theory... calling for increased land/property taxes I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral) it's not neutral, but it doesn't lean "left" or "right" per se. What I see is a preference for well-argued or immediately-obvious points, often with citations, that engage fully with whatever they are a response to. Dismissals, emotive arguments, citation-free when making bold claims ... these do not fare well.
incompatible 5y ago
Perhaps there's just a big overlap between anti-science opinion and right-leaning opinions, these days, and a lot of readers on HN don't care much for the former? Strictly speaking though, I think pro-science or anti-science is independent of left vs right. Edit: I think I've only used the downvote feature twice on HN, and in both times it was for promotion of a ridiculous Trump-related conspiracy theory. Consider me left-wing biased, which I certainly am these days.
- version_five 5y ago
  > pro-science or anti-science This is an absurd characterization that is only used by people who don't understand the difference between science and religion and think that calling someone "anti-science" is a way to avoid debate about their religious views. It's as embarrassing as it is offensive.
  - lifeformed 5y ago
    They didn't say anything about religion - there are many non-religious anti-science views on the right, like climate denial and wild conspiracy theories. Plus, religious views that guide public policy and contradict science are fair to criticize.
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
      I might be misreading the comment you're responding to, but I think it was describing science as a religion. The dichotomy of "pro-science" and "anti-science" elevates science to an almost religious stature. Science is fallible, it's very hard to do and just as hard to interpret. It's also not the right tool for a lot of issues. Increasingly people have been adopting being pro-science as a part of their identity as if science held some ultimate, unquestionable truth. To me it is akin to faith, it's an appeal to a higher authority that is used to shut down debate and paint some opinions as moral and others as immoral.
      - version_five 4y ago

rectang 5y ago

Well, I would like it if I could participate in a forum where "women are genetically predisposed to be less ambitious than men" is not a constant theme of debate. Having that debate drives away women. I don't know if that's the kind of "right-leaning opinion" you're talking about, but if it is, I would rather that we were divided into two silos: one silo where people talk about how women are not ambitious, and one silo with women.

sacrosancty 5y ago
I think there are plenty of forums where vulnerable people are shielded from uncomfortable ideas. And there are plenty where open exploration of ideas happens. The internet is decentralized enough that everyone can be satisfied already. I don't see what needs fixing. I wonder, are there predominantly female areas of society where members often worry about how their rules drive away men? Are nurses afraid to talk about men's propensity to not be caring in case it scares them off?
- rectang 5y ago
  A lot of the most provocative conversations I've read have been in siloed forums, where people are not constantly getting shouted down and interrupted and can actually string together coherent lines of thought. I would like it very much if Radiopaper's approach, or some variant of it, made it possible to actually have a more enriching exploration of ideas.
- aidanhs 5y ago
  In the concrete context of the post you're replying to, you seem to be saying that women are 'vulnerable people'? I'd suggest picking a definition of 'vulnerable people' that doesn't mean pushing away half the world's population. (I'm also a little bemused at your implication of what an 'uncomfortable idea' is, as well as the implication that hackernews is the right place for this, as well as the assertion that you can fragment social networks to satisfy people while ignoring the effects of critical mass - but there's too much to unpack) Your second paragraph is irrelevant in this thread (which discusses HN specifically).
  - incompatible 5y ago
    Uncomfortable ideas, for vulnerable people, I guess would be the kinds of ideas that make them vulnerable in the first place. E.g., that same-sex relationships are against God or against the natural order of things, or that women should naturally be subservient to men, or only have themselves to blame for sexual violence. I've heard that there are forums on the Internet where such ideas are explored freely. Edit: A forum that bans discussions like that, will probably be seen as left-leaning by some.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      That's just obscure political correctness. I'd say it's far more often people who lack emotional maturity or self confidence and have any of all sorts of common insecurities that they don't want to be reminded of. Imagine being called an idiot when you actually have a low IQ? It hurts and it's far more common than being gay in Pakistan or whatever.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    The person I was replying to seemed to want protected forums where women could be shielded from uncomfortable ideas. I was just saying that we already have those, as well as not those. Everyone's satisfied. As for network effects, small forums still exist and serve people fine. You don't actually have to be on Twitter or HN to interact with people that you prefer.
LightHugger 5y ago
This is rarely possible on the internet but the ideal forum for me would be one where people could discuss the details of genetic predispositions with the understanding that it generally shouldn't change how people should behave. Like, say one day that a very well researched finding comes out and proves that men are predisposed to be more violent, in reference to higher incarceration rates. Should it change how you treat other people, once it has been reasonably proven as fact? I think not. The choice that someone makes to discriminate against a group based on statistical realities does not depend in the slightest on whether those facts are true. People easily pretend they are true if they are not, and if they are true it doesn't justify discrimination in the end either way! Unfortunately these arguments seem to often end up just being in service of a goal like justifying discrimination, and when they aren't, certain others will show up to accuse the person of that even if not true. Sigh.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago

I’ve actually seen the opposite ime. Anecdotal, but I’ve told my wife at least 3-4 times about how shocked I’ve been that conservative talking points have been received well on this platform. The wuhan lab leak theory, commentary on undue censorship, predatory DIB/HR practices, moving out of costal areas to seek more sane people groups, and so on. I’m often surprised that there are centrists and right leaning people on this platform considering that the current media narrative would insist that we are all some degree of leftist.

woojoo666 5y ago
Would you consider yourself left-leaning by any chance? I wonder if its a perspective thing, because from what I've seen discussions seem pretty balanced towards both sides. I saw the wuhan lab theory post that I think you're talking about. But I've also seen a ton of posts and comments recently calling for increased land/property taxes
- no-dr-onboard 5y ago
  No friend, on the contrary. I’d describe myself as a theonomic libertarian. A religious extremist by the standards of most people.
  - woojoo666 5y ago
    That's an interesting combination for sure, I'll have to look more into it!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 5y ago
  > wuhan lab theory... calling for increased land/property taxes I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral) it's not neutral, but it doesn't lean "left" or "right" per se. What I see is a preference for well-argued or immediately-obvious points, often with citations, that engage fully with whatever they are a response to. Dismissals, emotive arguments, citation-free when making bold claims ... these do not fare well.

incompatible 5y ago

Perhaps there's just a big overlap between anti-science opinion and right-leaning opinions, these days, and a lot of readers on HN don't care much for the former? Strictly speaking though, I think pro-science or anti-science is independent of left vs right. Edit: I think I've only used the downvote feature twice on HN, and in both times it was for promotion of a ridiculous Trump-related conspiracy theory. Consider me left-wing biased, which I certainly am these days.

version_five 5y ago
> pro-science or anti-science This is an absurd characterization that is only used by people who don't understand the difference between science and religion and think that calling someone "anti-science" is a way to avoid debate about their religious views. It's as embarrassing as it is offensive.
- lifeformed 5y ago
  They didn't say anything about religion - there are many non-religious anti-science views on the right, like climate denial and wild conspiracy theories. Plus, religious views that guide public policy and contradict science are fair to criticize.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    I might be misreading the comment you're responding to, but I think it was describing science as a religion. The dichotomy of "pro-science" and "anti-science" elevates science to an almost religious stature. Science is fallible, it's very hard to do and just as hard to interpret. It's also not the right tool for a lot of issues. Increasingly people have been adopting being pro-science as a part of their identity as if science held some ultimate, unquestionable truth. To me it is akin to faith, it's an appeal to a higher authority that is used to shut down debate and paint some opinions as moral and others as immoral.
    - version_five 4y ago