3 ms·

then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. Social rules like that are intended to protect the community from jerky behaviour

by pvg 4y ago

then the rules should be based off of that, and not a general interpretation. Social rules like that are intended to protect the community from jerky behaviour not spare the feelings of the individual who's strayed into jerkdom. They wouldn't practically work the other way - you're a jerk if enough people think you are.

deltasevennine 4y ago
I beg to differ. Was Galileo a Jerk? He was excommunicated simply because he simply disagreed with the majority and stated the earth circled around the sun and many many people thought he was a jerk because of that. If HN excommunicates people simply because a majority disagrees with them, then this place is not a good forum for science and intelligent discussion. When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again. That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the idea behind free speech. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. So unless I explicitly threaten or insult someone. Let it be. Cast your vote. But to censor and threaten a ban? That's wrong. That's exactly what's going on here. Read carefully what I wrote, there are no threats, there are no insults, there are no explicit attacks; just my opinion. The only line crossed here is the threat of a ban; we all know Dang operates first on a warning then he bans people.
- pvg 4y ago
  Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths and being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated. Just don't be a jerk on this forum, it's not that complicated.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    >Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. I think it is relevant. It shows that Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The difference here is, I'm not being a jerk. People just like to think that way when they're told they're wrong. Nobody likes being told that they're utterly wrong. >You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely to become one of the greatest programmers in the world. It's quite unlikely and even for a minor statement like that I'm getting a warning. >it's not that complicated. Isn't this mean? I mean are you implying that this concept is so complicated that I can't comprehend it? I obviously have enough intelligence to understand your point, so by saying this you're insulting me. Now you're a jerk. That's my interpretation. We both know I'm trying to push for less restrictive rules around speech. It's better to address that point rather then endlessly repeating "don't be a jerk.". And, honestly, I wasn't really even a jerk. >being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. He has records and I just got marked. That's what happened here. It wasn't just "asking nicely."
    - pvg 4y ago
      Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely No, that's simply being a jerk. Isn't this mean? no Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        >The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. You notice how much longer my post is then yours? I'm trying to engage in discussion. But you're dismissing it and presenting baseless shit... in essence insisting that I'm a jerk on every point. You're basically acting like a jerk here. It's unequivocal. At least in this thread, between you and me, you're the one acting like an ass... not me. >It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen. then you're blind, or a liar. He does this 100%. >No, that's simply being a jerk. no. It's the truth.

by pvg 4y ago

deltasevennine 4y ago

I beg to differ. Was Galileo a Jerk? He was excommunicated simply because he simply disagreed with the majority and stated the earth circled around the sun and many many people thought he was a jerk because of that. If HN excommunicates people simply because a majority disagrees with them, then this place is not a good forum for science and intelligent discussion. When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again. That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the idea behind free speech. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. So unless I explicitly threaten or insult someone. Let it be. Cast your vote. But to censor and threaten a ban? That's wrong. That's exactly what's going on here. Read carefully what I wrote, there are no threats, there are no insults, there are no explicit attacks; just my opinion. The only line crossed here is the threat of a ban; we all know Dang operates first on a warning then he bans people.

pvg 4y ago
Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths and being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated. Just don't be a jerk on this forum, it's not that complicated.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >Galileo was famously a jerk but it's not really relevant. I think it is relevant. It shows that Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The difference here is, I'm not being a jerk. People just like to think that way when they're told they're wrong. Nobody likes being told that they're utterly wrong. >You are not Galileo limning new celestial truths Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely to become one of the greatest programmers in the world. It's quite unlikely and even for a minor statement like that I'm getting a warning. >it's not that complicated. Isn't this mean? I mean are you implying that this concept is so complicated that I can't comprehend it? I obviously have enough intelligence to understand your point, so by saying this you're insulting me. Now you're a jerk. That's my interpretation. We both know I'm trying to push for less restrictive rules around speech. It's better to address that point rather then endlessly repeating "don't be a jerk.". And, honestly, I wasn't really even a jerk. >being asked nicely not to be a jerk on a public forum is not like being excommunicated Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. He has records and I just got marked. That's what happened here. It wasn't just "asking nicely."
  - pvg 4y ago
    Jerks have important information that shouldn't be censored. The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. Yeah I'm declaring an even simpler truth. That Owen is unlikely No, that's simply being a jerk. Isn't this mean? no Dang issues a warning first, then shadow bans next, that's how he operates. It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      >The crushing majority of jerks are simply jerks. You notice how much longer my post is then yours? I'm trying to engage in discussion. But you're dismissing it and presenting baseless shit... in essence insisting that I'm a jerk on every point. You're basically acting like a jerk here. It's unequivocal. At least in this thread, between you and me, you're the one acting like an ass... not me. >It's not 'how he operates' that I've seen. then you're blind, or a liar. He does this 100%. >No, that's simply being a jerk. no. It's the truth.