3 ms·

What I stated is factually correct, unlike the BS from the troll who created an account just to reply to this thread (see the comments under his account). Facts

by yazzku 4y ago

What I stated is factually correct, unlike the BS from the troll who created an account just to reply to this thread (see the comments under his account). Facts are not allowed on HN when they bother other people? You're also falsely accusing me of religious flamewar. This has nothing to do with religion; my snarky remark on Jesus not approving was just to show that the Catholic Church bears no moral authority, really since its inception. Let's not even discuss crusades or Spanish genocide in South America. These are simple facts that anyone who has studied history can see for themselves. I obviously mean no disrespect to Jesus or his followers.

dang 4y ago
It always feels like the other person started it and did worse. From my perspective your comment was just as flamey as the others. On HN, we want curious conversation. Denunciatory arguments on inflammatory topics are the easiest thing for internet forums to degenerate into, and when they do, curious conversation is quickly destroyed. That's why we have to expend a lot of energy trying to moderate this tendency. The moderation point doesn't change based on how factually correct your comments here. People bring facts into these flamewars all the time—carefully selected to bolster their side, of course. The other side has its arsenal of facts as well. From a moderation point of view, it doesn't much matter if the flaming arrows people shoot at each other happen to be made out of fact-wood or some other material. What we want is for users to use HN as intended, and that is something else entirely. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- yazzku 4y ago
  Ok, 'Jesus approves' was unnecessary. But the article is about the Catholic Church aiding in the robbery of babies during the Spanish dictatorship, and I thought it useful to point out that this was not just an isolated data point in the Church's wrongdoing and complete lack of morals, but rather, the Church was a fundamental component in the backbone of the regime. I thought readers would find the background useful.
  - dang 4y ago
    I appreciate the reply! I think there's room for an argument like that. The only point I'd push back on is "complete lack of morals" - this is again the type of generic/overheated rhetoric that we're trying to avoid here. The rest seems fine.

by yazzku 4y ago

dang 4y ago

It always feels like the other person started it and did worse. From my perspective your comment was just as flamey as the others. On HN, we want curious conversation. Denunciatory arguments on inflammatory topics are the easiest thing for internet forums to degenerate into, and when they do, curious conversation is quickly destroyed. That's why we have to expend a lot of energy trying to moderate this tendency. The moderation point doesn't change based on how factually correct your comments here. People bring facts into these flamewars all the time—carefully selected to bolster their side, of course. The other side has its arsenal of facts as well. From a moderation point of view, it doesn't much matter if the flaming arrows people shoot at each other happen to be made out of fact-wood or some other material. What we want is for users to use HN as intended, and that is something else entirely. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

yazzku 4y ago
Ok, 'Jesus approves' was unnecessary. But the article is about the Catholic Church aiding in the robbery of babies during the Spanish dictatorship, and I thought it useful to point out that this was not just an isolated data point in the Church's wrongdoing and complete lack of morals, but rather, the Church was a fundamental component in the backbone of the regime. I thought readers would find the background useful.
- dang 4y ago
  I appreciate the reply! I think there's room for an argument like that. The only point I'd push back on is "complete lack of morals" - this is again the type of generic/overheated rhetoric that we're trying to avoid here. The rest seems fine.