4 ms·

I think there might be a split in world views. There is a new emerging set of beliefs that are incompatible with some more traditional beliefs. When discussing

by xupybd 4y ago

I think there might be a split in world views. There is a new emerging set of beliefs that are incompatible with some more traditional beliefs. When discussing them people tend to focus on the consequences of these beliefs and not the axioms. It also seems that people are not willing to agree to disagree online. Yet they're often happy to in offline relationships. I think this is a consequence of how superficial online interactions are. HN appears, to me, as one shining light in the darkness. Conversations here remain civil. I have just deleted my Twitter account for that very reason. If they had an army of Dangs they might be able to moderate to the degree that HN does. However I don't think Dangs scale.

mnsc 4y ago
My take is that it's the scale of things that pits the entire world against itself in every issue. Because irregardless what belief you have, whatever your take is, chances are there exists an individual that is passionate about the exact opposite of your take. And the global interconnectedness has removed all barriers from instantly arguing, in some cases letting you setup keyword searches that notifies you when your "enemy" dares to speak up. Add to that the fact where there's lots of passion there's less of reason. Which will make you more inclined to argue in bad faith.
- dsign 4y ago
  I think that you nailed it. I would add that as long as we don't reach for rocks to throw at each other (or the online equivalent), having and respectfully expressing diverging opinions is okay.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Slaboj Zizek had something to say apropos this that still troubles me. Former Yugoslavia was obviously built on an uneasy, contrived social balance, but it was not beneath the surface. According to Zizek humour was racist, disgusting, commonplace and absolutely accepted part of life. It started to disappear leading up to 1991, replaced by a "chilling political correctness". He suggested that a culture of rude banter was a necessary safety valve, and silence portends violence. It seems plausible, but I've never heard another former Yugoslav confirm that, and Zizek talks a lot of tosh sometimes.
addingnumbers 4y ago
I got mild dang scolding for one unduly snarky comment a year or so back and really appreciated it. One of my favorite online communities back in its heyday was somethingawful. You had to make a one-time token payment of a few bucks to be able to post, and they'd triumphantly ban you at the first or (usually) second hint of obnoxiousness.
- starkd 4y ago
  yes, somethingawful was a very unique site. Especially under clever writes like Frolixo, whose humor I still miss. It was a kind of humor that was mildly abrasive yet not too much as to be toxic. You just sort of knew it was humor. I guess the site is still up, but last time I checked it had lost its funny.
Macha 4y ago
This behaviour is not just limited to culture war topics (or even controversial tech topics like Electron). I think there's some level of the literal point scoring with karma encouraging point scoring types of conversation on any topic
- krapp 4y ago
  Yes, the entire purpose of karma is to encourage people to do whatever makes the number go up and not do whatever makes the number go down. On HN the assumption seems to be that people will tend to upvote civil, substantive, thought provoking comments and downvote everything else, but in reality all such systems tend towards a path of least resistance to reward - people will do what's easiest to gain karma, not what's best, and what that is tends to be extremely context sensitive.
  - oblak 4y ago
    I can agree with that. Luckily, karma, as implemented here, doesn't seem to prevent people from sharing what they have to say. Not like on Slashdot where karma really is a bitch. Been there for 20+ years and still think it's an awful to moderate because we have the same 20 guys dominating almost every discussion
  - starkd 4y ago
    I think the HN karma is subtle enough not to take it too seriously, and yet it's still there to give you the signal your comments may be out line. When I first started reading HN, I didn't even realize there was a karma feature. I also like how there are no notifications, so it doesn't feed a back and forth argument from continuing past its expiration. It may be a little less convenient, but it seems to strike the right balance.

by xupybd 4y ago

mnsc 4y ago

My take is that it's the scale of things that pits the entire world against itself in every issue. Because irregardless what belief you have, whatever your take is, chances are there exists an individual that is passionate about the exact opposite of your take. And the global interconnectedness has removed all barriers from instantly arguing, in some cases letting you setup keyword searches that notifies you when your "enemy" dares to speak up. Add to that the fact where there's lots of passion there's less of reason. Which will make you more inclined to argue in bad faith.

dsign 4y ago
I think that you nailed it. I would add that as long as we don't reach for rocks to throw at each other (or the online equivalent), having and respectfully expressing diverging opinions is okay.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Slaboj Zizek had something to say apropos this that still troubles me. Former Yugoslavia was obviously built on an uneasy, contrived social balance, but it was not beneath the surface. According to Zizek humour was racist, disgusting, commonplace and absolutely accepted part of life. It started to disappear leading up to 1991, replaced by a "chilling political correctness". He suggested that a culture of rude banter was a necessary safety valve, and silence portends violence. It seems plausible, but I've never heard another former Yugoslav confirm that, and Zizek talks a lot of tosh sometimes.

addingnumbers 4y ago

I got mild dang scolding for one unduly snarky comment a year or so back and really appreciated it. One of my favorite online communities back in its heyday was somethingawful. You had to make a one-time token payment of a few bucks to be able to post, and they'd triumphantly ban you at the first or (usually) second hint of obnoxiousness.

starkd 4y ago
yes, somethingawful was a very unique site. Especially under clever writes like Frolixo, whose humor I still miss. It was a kind of humor that was mildly abrasive yet not too much as to be toxic. You just sort of knew it was humor. I guess the site is still up, but last time I checked it had lost its funny.

Macha 4y ago

This behaviour is not just limited to culture war topics (or even controversial tech topics like Electron). I think there's some level of the literal point scoring with karma encouraging point scoring types of conversation on any topic

krapp 4y ago
Yes, the entire purpose of karma is to encourage people to do whatever makes the number go up and not do whatever makes the number go down. On HN the assumption seems to be that people will tend to upvote civil, substantive, thought provoking comments and downvote everything else, but in reality all such systems tend towards a path of least resistance to reward - people will do what's easiest to gain karma, not what's best, and what that is tends to be extremely context sensitive.
- oblak 4y ago
  I can agree with that. Luckily, karma, as implemented here, doesn't seem to prevent people from sharing what they have to say. Not like on Slashdot where karma really is a bitch. Been there for 20+ years and still think it's an awful to moderate because we have the same 20 guys dominating almost every discussion
- starkd 4y ago
  I think the HN karma is subtle enough not to take it too seriously, and yet it's still there to give you the signal your comments may be out line. When I first started reading HN, I didn't even realize there was a karma feature. I also like how there are no notifications, so it doesn't feed a back and forth argument from continuing past its expiration. It may be a little less convenient, but it seems to strike the right balance.