6 ms·

> It was because, when the thread was getting going, it flooded with crap comments Why did you listed a comment supporting abolishing the monarchy an example o

> It was because, when the thread was getting going, it flooded with crap comments Why did you listed a comment supporting abolishing the monarchy an example of "crap comments"?

tptacek 4y ago
(Not a moderator, but this is an easy case.) Because they were crap comments. They'd have been crap comments if they were pro-monarchy, too. One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".
- arinlen 4y ago
  > One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, I did not referred to that comment. > and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao". The comment you're trying to misrepresent was "Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid.", and afterwards, once the downvotes started to flow, was edited with "Edit: yall actually support monarchies? cringe asf lmao" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043 Why do you feel that opposing the concept of a monarchy should be censored in a discussion on a topic which naturally involves replacing a monarch?
  - baq 4y ago
    dude if it was about javascript being 'cringe asf lmao' it'd get downvoted straight down to hades.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Nobody feels that. It's plain why the comment was singled out, and it has nothing to do with its point of view, other than the contempt that it had for the community it was posted on.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
  - frakkingcylons 4y ago
    I'm not against republicanism. Your example, 'Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid', is not an interesting or well though-out comment. If that's all the effort this commenter felt like giving to this forum, then it should be down-voted.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      - pvg 4y ago
        They aren't very interesting but they tend not to start flamewars and shittifying the place or needing moderation.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - steve_taylor 4y ago
      A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. "Fucking stupid" is an apt description of monarchism in this day and age.
      - xeromal 4y ago
        It's low effort.
      - xpe 4y ago
        > A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Concisely: this argument is unconvincing. > Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. But how do you know it is "fake nuance" rather than genuine explanation? By being uncharitable?
      - dang 4y ago
  - Hayvok 4y ago
    I’ll happily read an HN debate on the monarchy all day long. But I don’t see Dang censoring a robust, thoughtful discussion of abolishing the monarchy here. He shut down a cheap, childish comment that was followed by an even cheaper, vulgar dismissal of people who don’t already agree with the original “comment”.
dang 4y ago
They were crap comments because they were low-information, high-indignation name-calling. Comments like that are noise—and destructive noise at that—regardless of the position they favor. They could be arguing that 2+2=4 and be just as terrible. This should be obvious if you've read HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

> It was because, when the thread was getting going, it flooded with crap comments Why did you listed a comment supporting abolishing the monarchy an example of "crap comments"?

tptacek 4y ago

(Not a moderator, but this is an easy case.) Because they were crap comments. They'd have been crap comments if they were pro-monarchy, too. One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".

arinlen 4y ago
> One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, I did not referred to that comment. > and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao". The comment you're trying to misrepresent was "Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid.", and afterwards, once the downvotes started to flow, was edited with "Edit: yall actually support monarchies? cringe asf lmao" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043 Why do you feel that opposing the concept of a monarchy should be censored in a discussion on a topic which naturally involves replacing a monarch?
- baq 4y ago
  dude if it was about javascript being 'cringe asf lmao' it'd get downvoted straight down to hades.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Nobody feels that. It's plain why the comment was singled out, and it has nothing to do with its point of view, other than the contempt that it had for the community it was posted on.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
- frakkingcylons 4y ago
  I'm not against republicanism. Your example, 'Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid', is not an interesting or well though-out comment. If that's all the effort this commenter felt like giving to this forum, then it should be down-voted.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    - pvg 4y ago
      They aren't very interesting but they tend not to start flamewars and shittifying the place or needing moderation.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - steve_taylor 4y ago
    A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. "Fucking stupid" is an apt description of monarchism in this day and age.
    - xeromal 4y ago
      It's low effort.
    - xpe 4y ago
      > A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Concisely: this argument is unconvincing. > Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. But how do you know it is "fake nuance" rather than genuine explanation? By being uncharitable?
    - dang 4y ago
- Hayvok 4y ago
  I’ll happily read an HN debate on the monarchy all day long. But I don’t see Dang censoring a robust, thoughtful discussion of abolishing the monarchy here. He shut down a cheap, childish comment that was followed by an even cheaper, vulgar dismissal of people who don’t already agree with the original “comment”.

dang 4y ago

They were crap comments because they were low-information, high-indignation name-calling. Comments like that are noise—and destructive noise at that—regardless of the position they favor. They could be arguing that 2+2=4 and be just as terrible. This should be obvious if you've read HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.