The guidelines[1] clearly call for optimism: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. They also have ot

The guidelines[1] clearly call for optimism: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. They also have other good debate practices: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I see a lot of doubt & criticality across this site. I continue to feel like skepticism & scorn is broadly, not here but everywhere, cheap & plentiful. There's a kind of mono-mindedness that's convenient, but to dare to enter into the possibility that someone might be right is the mark of a real seeker, a real Hacker. Hackers never get far by assuming their beliefs are right. Anyone whose worked with systems know: the only way to progress is to question everything, repeatedly, to drum up data & examples, again & again. Ask ask ask, explore explore explore. Anyhow I think you're probably right that the lived experience is very much not as sunny as the guidelines requests; "behind every warning sign is a story"[2]. In this case uncountably many sad stories, of failure to honestly engage, dis-earnest barely masked popularity contents & self-justifications. And perhaps, as you say, not providing tools to keep the conversations going is a bit of a neutron-moderator for the ongoing chain reactions that might perhaps occur. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://twitter.com/behindeverysign https://twitter.com/behindeverysign