5 ms·

I am not sure Discovery Institute is a reliable source. Wikipedia says that it's a non-profit created with a specific goal of promoting certain non-scientific i

I am not sure Discovery Institute is a reliable source. Wikipedia says that it's a non-profit created with a specific goal of promoting certain non-scientific ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

trasz 4y ago
We can call it by name: a fringe theory spread by Christian extremists, a particular kind that’s deranged even by most Christian extremist standards. Same disgusting human trash like the ones behind abortion ban.
- dang 4y ago
  Religious flamewar is not ok here, so please don't take HN threads further into it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: We've had to ask you this kind of thing many times before - here's a small sample: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916978 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29687837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29687837 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578435 (June 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578417 (June 2020) Edit 2: It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological (and religious) battle. We ban accounts that do this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended. That means for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest.
  - trasz 4y ago
    It’s not a flamewar: I can easily provide sources that support all my claims, and I’m following your advice about “two comments at most, three is too much”. It also doesn’t have much to do with religion as such, as even Catholic Church is officially against the “intelligent design” idea. Now, what the above is, it is pointing out an organized disinformation campaign, which uses religious beliefs for its purposes. I’m pretty sure that fighting propaganda used to be part of the hacker ethos. And we’re not going to solve this problem by pretending this particular propaganda somehow deserves anyone’s respect or that it is any different from others. Would you be opposed to comments against antivax theories? If not - can you explain where do you see the difference? Also, I can’t help but notice that while comments that are openly racist are widely tolerated here, pointing it out is an “ideological battle” - as evidenced by your own examples above. Don’t you find it a bit… curious? I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person frustrated with it.
    - dang 4y ago
      Flamewar has nothing to do with providing sources. Nor does it have to do with being right or not. It's easy to be both right and replete with sources and still be doing name-calling, snark, aggression, or other things that the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid. It has to do with inflaming discussion to the point where people angrily hurl talking points and attacks at each other. That's far removed from the curious conversation, respectful across differences, that we want here. This is not a difficult concept for anyone familiar with internet threads. Moreover, the ways that you've been breaking the site guidelines are not borderline cases. Please just fix this. Pointing fingers at the bad behavior of others doesn't seem relevant to this point. You've been breaking HN's rules badly for a long time now. If you first fix this, and then have something to say about other people's bad behavior, or about moderation failures, I'd be happy to address it. By the way, you've also posted lots of good comments that are perfectly within the site guidelines. I appreciate that, and I definitely don't want to ban you. Unfortunately, bad comments do more damage than good comments add value; plus they add to existential risk (since the default fate of most internet forums is self-destruction, sooner or later). So we need to do something about the bad comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - trasz 4y ago
        >If you first fix this, and then have something to say about other people's bad behavior, or about moderation failures, I'd be happy to address it. After I fix it, what should I do next time I encounter a racist comment? Should I just pretend it’s not there? And no, I don’t believe the natural fate of forums is self-destruction. We have plenty of examples showing otherwise, from Usenet to 4chan to the entire scientific publication system. The fate of every _commercial_ forum is self-destruction, because it self-regulates into something that doesn’t quite align with the commercial owner’s best interest, because it’s different from users’ best interest - and it appears that this problem can only be toned down, but not fixed in a sustainable way. An example of this is the vast majority of current startup culture.
        dang 4y ago

trasz 4y ago

We can call it by name: a fringe theory spread by Christian extremists, a particular kind that’s deranged even by most Christian extremist standards. Same disgusting human trash like the ones behind abortion ban.

dang 4y ago
Religious flamewar is not ok here, so please don't take HN threads further into it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: We've had to ask you this kind of thing many times before - here's a small sample: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916978 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29687837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29687837 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578435 (June 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23578417 (June 2020) Edit 2: It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological (and religious) battle. We ban accounts that do this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended. That means for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest.
- trasz 4y ago
  It’s not a flamewar: I can easily provide sources that support all my claims, and I’m following your advice about “two comments at most, three is too much”. It also doesn’t have much to do with religion as such, as even Catholic Church is officially against the “intelligent design” idea. Now, what the above is, it is pointing out an organized disinformation campaign, which uses religious beliefs for its purposes. I’m pretty sure that fighting propaganda used to be part of the hacker ethos. And we’re not going to solve this problem by pretending this particular propaganda somehow deserves anyone’s respect or that it is any different from others. Would you be opposed to comments against antivax theories? If not - can you explain where do you see the difference? Also, I can’t help but notice that while comments that are openly racist are widely tolerated here, pointing it out is an “ideological battle” - as evidenced by your own examples above. Don’t you find it a bit… curious? I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person frustrated with it.
  - dang 4y ago
    Flamewar has nothing to do with providing sources. Nor does it have to do with being right or not. It's easy to be both right and replete with sources and still be doing name-calling, snark, aggression, or other things that the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid. It has to do with inflaming discussion to the point where people angrily hurl talking points and attacks at each other. That's far removed from the curious conversation, respectful across differences, that we want here. This is not a difficult concept for anyone familiar with internet threads. Moreover, the ways that you've been breaking the site guidelines are not borderline cases. Please just fix this. Pointing fingers at the bad behavior of others doesn't seem relevant to this point. You've been breaking HN's rules badly for a long time now. If you first fix this, and then have something to say about other people's bad behavior, or about moderation failures, I'd be happy to address it. By the way, you've also posted lots of good comments that are perfectly within the site guidelines. I appreciate that, and I definitely don't want to ban you. Unfortunately, bad comments do more damage than good comments add value; plus they add to existential risk (since the default fate of most internet forums is self-destruction, sooner or later). So we need to do something about the bad comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - trasz 4y ago
      >If you first fix this, and then have something to say about other people's bad behavior, or about moderation failures, I'd be happy to address it. After I fix it, what should I do next time I encounter a racist comment? Should I just pretend it’s not there? And no, I don’t believe the natural fate of forums is self-destruction. We have plenty of examples showing otherwise, from Usenet to 4chan to the entire scientific publication system. The fate of every _commercial_ forum is self-destruction, because it self-regulates into something that doesn’t quite align with the commercial owner’s best interest, because it’s different from users’ best interest - and it appears that this problem can only be toned down, but not fixed in a sustainable way. An example of this is the vast majority of current startup culture.
      - dang 4y ago