3 ms·

I think I'll disagree that this is off topic. What I quoted is a literal quote from the article. I wouldn't have mentioned it or caught it if it wasn't. From my

by bmitc 4y ago

I think I'll disagree that this is off topic. What I quoted is a literal quote from the article. I wouldn't have mentioned it or caught it if it wasn't. From my perspective, the entire point of the article is the beauty and smallness of things that we are otherwise unaware of. The idea that books thousands of years old didn't anticipate, and thus don't accommodate, such is interesting. And I thought the discussion was good.

dang 4y ago
"religions present such a myopic view of life and what it means to be alive on Earth" etc. is generic religious flamebait. We don't want that on HN, because it leads (in the general case) to horrible threads that are as nasty as they are predictable. I'm sure that's not your intent, but we have to go by the effects these things generally have. You may be right about connections to the article (I haven't checked) but that is not as important as preserving the ecosystem in general, which is the motive behind moderating HN this way; not arbitrarily but based on many years of experience with how these things usually go.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I'm gonna have to disagree here, I don't think the single line from the comment passes the threshold for flamebait. The comment wasn't offtopic, and the conversation it led to was both interesting and not really a flamewar. I don't often see comments replying to dang's moderation (from people other than the ones he's moderating), and generally, I think dang's influence is beneficial, but I would like to see the moderation be more tolerant (IE, slight adjustment of thresholds around "generic flamebait").
  - dang 4y ago
    Pejorative generalizations about religion are obviously religious flamebait. This isn't a borderline call. If this thread didn't erupt into a nasty conflagration, that's only by chance, the same way that not every lit match dropped in a dry forest starts a forest fire. It's still not cool to drop them.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I suppose myopic can often, maybe more often than not, have a negative connotation, but it’s just been a word on the tip of my tongue lately (I’m sure there’s a word for that), and I generally mean it as having lack of foresight. I think there can be a bit of religious protectionism, because I don’t see similar comments being labeled as scientific flame bait, because I have often provided much harsher myopia critique to non-religious topics. But I can see the general moderation point of view and that, maybe disappointingly so, comments referencing religion can be hot, so to speak, and that my comment train got lucky. Edit: I made the original comment somewhat in passing, and just commented on the part that caught my eye other than "wow, I need to read more about these things".

by bmitc 4y ago

dang 4y ago

"religions present such a myopic view of life and what it means to be alive on Earth" etc. is generic religious flamebait. We don't want that on HN, because it leads (in the general case) to horrible threads that are as nasty as they are predictable. I'm sure that's not your intent, but we have to go by the effects these things generally have. You may be right about connections to the article (I haven't checked) but that is not as important as preserving the ecosystem in general, which is the motive behind moderating HN this way; not arbitrarily but based on many years of experience with how these things usually go.

dekhn 4y ago
I'm gonna have to disagree here, I don't think the single line from the comment passes the threshold for flamebait. The comment wasn't offtopic, and the conversation it led to was both interesting and not really a flamewar. I don't often see comments replying to dang's moderation (from people other than the ones he's moderating), and generally, I think dang's influence is beneficial, but I would like to see the moderation be more tolerant (IE, slight adjustment of thresholds around "generic flamebait").
- dang 4y ago
  Pejorative generalizations about religion are obviously religious flamebait. This isn't a borderline call. If this thread didn't erupt into a nasty conflagration, that's only by chance, the same way that not every lit match dropped in a dry forest starts a forest fire. It's still not cool to drop them.
bmitc 4y ago
I suppose myopic can often, maybe more often than not, have a negative connotation, but it’s just been a word on the tip of my tongue lately (I’m sure there’s a word for that), and I generally mean it as having lack of foresight. I think there can be a bit of religious protectionism, because I don’t see similar comments being labeled as scientific flame bait, because I have often provided much harsher myopia critique to non-religious topics. But I can see the general moderation point of view and that, maybe disappointingly so, comments referencing religion can be hot, so to speak, and that my comment train got lucky. Edit: I made the original comment somewhat in passing, and just commented on the part that caught my eye other than "wow, I need to read more about these things".