3 ms·

The comment just below mine espouses an almost identical message. And it’s still left up. Interesting. I’ve never seen this type of response for any of the bla

The comment just below mine espouses an almost identical message. And it’s still left up. Interesting. I’ve never seen this type of response for any of the blatant “ideological battle” posts from the other side. Gee I wonder why that is.

torstenvl 4y ago
I agree with what I think your point is, but dang is right. Although significantly disparate impact can be indicative of discrimination, it isn't necessarily. Title VII and Ricci essentially acknowledge this. I don't see anything in the article that would satisfy Title VII post-Ricci (but admittedly I haven't read the pleadings). This is all by long way of saying the following: even though I am generally inclined toward what I believe your view is, I still found your comment to be snarky and bordering on trolling. HN Guidelines: "Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Thank you. You are correct about my point. However I don’t think That posting “this will get thrown out in court” in a humorous / sarcastic tone is “using my account for ideological battle.” and warrants a personal callout by Dang. There is snark all over HN in many worse instances and it looks suspect to myself and the audience when a mod flags this specific content. Lets be real : if I used the exact same phrasing but it was anti-Twitter / anti-Elon snark our mod friend would turn into Stevie Wonder in an instant. It would benefit HN to at least pretend to enforce the rules evenly.
  - dang 4y ago
    Don't miss the word "primarily" in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023. That's a critical bit, and when I use that word it always means that I'm not just responding to one comment but to a repeated pattern of behavior. (More on this in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212)
dang 4y ago
The significant words there are "I’ve never seen". People see what they're primed to see. On the internet, that means you notice what you dislike. (I don't mean you personally—I mean all of us.) All the cases that go the other way are escaping your notice, or getting discounted (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). When you weight one side at approximately 100 and the opposing side at approximately 0, things feel appallingly unbalanced. Everyone with strong passions, on any side of any $topic, is doing a version of that and therefore feels that way. Because this mechanism is so reliable, I can tell you for sure, even though I have no memory of what your ideological preference is, that the opposite side is every bit as convinced that we're biased in your favor against them, and every bit as "Gee-I-wonder-why-that-is" sarcastic about it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 for a panoply of examples; there are hundreds more where those came from. Re the other comment you mention: I'd need to see a specific link to be sure which other comment you're talking about. It's possible that I just didn't see it (we don't come close to seeing everything), but it's also possible that the other account isn't using HN primarily for ideological battle. That word primarily (which you'll notice I used in my reply to you) is critical because it demarcates one line at which we ban accounts. Past explanations of that point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

torstenvl 4y ago

I agree with what I think your point is, but dang is right. Although significantly disparate impact can be indicative of discrimination, it isn't necessarily. Title VII and Ricci essentially acknowledge this. I don't see anything in the article that would satisfy Title VII post-Ricci (but admittedly I haven't read the pleadings). This is all by long way of saying the following: even though I am generally inclined toward what I believe your view is, I still found your comment to be snarky and bordering on trolling. HN Guidelines: "Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Thank you. You are correct about my point. However I don’t think That posting “this will get thrown out in court” in a humorous / sarcastic tone is “using my account for ideological battle.” and warrants a personal callout by Dang. There is snark all over HN in many worse instances and it looks suspect to myself and the audience when a mod flags this specific content. Lets be real : if I used the exact same phrasing but it was anti-Twitter / anti-Elon snark our mod friend would turn into Stevie Wonder in an instant. It would benefit HN to at least pretend to enforce the rules evenly.
- dang 4y ago
  Don't miss the word "primarily" in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023. That's a critical bit, and when I use that word it always means that I'm not just responding to one comment but to a repeated pattern of behavior. (More on this in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212)

dang 4y ago

The significant words there are "I’ve never seen". People see what they're primed to see. On the internet, that means you notice what you dislike. (I don't mean you personally—I mean all of us.) All the cases that go the other way are escaping your notice, or getting discounted (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). When you weight one side at approximately 100 and the opposing side at approximately 0, things feel appallingly unbalanced. Everyone with strong passions, on any side of any $topic, is doing a version of that and therefore feels that way. Because this mechanism is so reliable, I can tell you for sure, even though I have no memory of what your ideological preference is, that the opposite side is every bit as convinced that we're biased in your favor against them, and every bit as "Gee-I-wonder-why-that-is" sarcastic about it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 for a panoply of examples; there are hundreds more where those came from. Re the other comment you mention: I'd need to see a specific link to be sure which other comment you're talking about. It's possible that I just didn't see it (we don't come close to seeing everything), but it's also possible that the other account isn't using HN primarily for ideological battle. That word primarily (which you'll notice I used in my reply to you) is critical because it demarcates one line at which we ban accounts. Past explanations of that point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....