3 ms·

I think you've slightly missed the mark on this one. Lots of things are tropes (there are tropes in your comment too, such as 'borderline call'), and saying tha

by foldr 3y ago

I think you've slightly missed the mark on this one. Lots of things are tropes (there are tropes in your comment too, such as 'borderline call'), and saying that Putin has basically lost the war (whether true or false) isn't anywhere close to being 'grandiose rhetoric'. I don't think anyone expects you to get things right 100% of the time. It seems to me that calling this one particular comment flamebait was just a mistake. While it's not a very interesting comment, it's at least free of the wild speculation that you can find in many of the unmoderated comments in this thread.

dang 3y ago
I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. It's one of the most common qualities on the internet, and one of the least interesting. I can't agree that I missed the mark on that comment - what I said seems well within standard mod practice on HN. But it's fine that you disagree - there's always going to be disagreement on specific cases, since we all have different backgrounds and therefore different perceptions. It's the principles that matter.
- foldr 3y ago
  You asked for constructive suggestions in your original comment. I'd suggest not using the word 'grandiose' in this way. If someone accused me of using 'grandiose rhetoric', then I certainly wouldn't think they just meant to say that I'd made a strong claim without supporting evidence. The denominator is necessarily small as we're talking about a breaking news story obscured by the fog of war. If this is the bar that comments still have to reach in this context, then I wonder if the story should just remain flagged.
  - dang 3y ago
    I appreciate the constructive suggestion! I'm not sure I'm ready to let go of that phrase though. Probably it includes more than I managed to capture in my attempted definition upthread.
- tguvot 3y ago
  >I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. you just described a majority of discussions around AI/Chat GPT here. Or around twitter/facebook/etc. using this criteria they should be outright banned from here.
  - labster 3y ago
    There are an awful lot of shallow takes on geopolitics here and in general, because … how do I put this in a non-insulting way … it’s a complex topic that doesn’t lend itself to pithy internet comments by those without a deep knowledge. Nation states do weird things, like how the US policy towards Cuba (itself complex) is almost entire driven by the electoral college for presidential elections and domestic demographics, but security still matters. Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      >Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article. they are pithy yet shallow. full of "grandiose rhetoric". "made up our minds" doesn't equal "sufficiently knowledgeable"
  - dang 3y ago
    Yes, and a majority of internet discussions generally. Do I wish I could deflate that aspect of HN? Sure I do.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      you could banish all typical, repeatable, pointless discussions to one day a week: "free-style Wednesdays" and reserve rest of the week for news that are actually new and educational. also could be interesting to see "no rules/mods friday".

by foldr 3y ago

dang 3y ago

I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. It's one of the most common qualities on the internet, and one of the least interesting. I can't agree that I missed the mark on that comment - what I said seems well within standard mod practice on HN. But it's fine that you disagree - there's always going to be disagreement on specific cases, since we all have different backgrounds and therefore different perceptions. It's the principles that matter.

foldr 3y ago
You asked for constructive suggestions in your original comment. I'd suggest not using the word 'grandiose' in this way. If someone accused me of using 'grandiose rhetoric', then I certainly wouldn't think they just meant to say that I'd made a strong claim without supporting evidence. The denominator is necessarily small as we're talking about a breaking news story obscured by the fog of war. If this is the bar that comments still have to reach in this context, then I wonder if the story should just remain flagged.
- dang 3y ago
  I appreciate the constructive suggestion! I'm not sure I'm ready to let go of that phrase though. Probably it includes more than I managed to capture in my attempted definition upthread.
tguvot 3y ago
>I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. you just described a majority of discussions around AI/Chat GPT here. Or around twitter/facebook/etc. using this criteria they should be outright banned from here.
- labster 3y ago
  There are an awful lot of shallow takes on geopolitics here and in general, because … how do I put this in a non-insulting way … it’s a complex topic that doesn’t lend itself to pithy internet comments by those without a deep knowledge. Nation states do weird things, like how the US policy towards Cuba (itself complex) is almost entire driven by the electoral college for presidential elections and domestic demographics, but security still matters. Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    >Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article. they are pithy yet shallow. full of "grandiose rhetoric". "made up our minds" doesn't equal "sufficiently knowledgeable"
- dang 3y ago
  Yes, and a majority of internet discussions generally. Do I wish I could deflate that aspect of HN? Sure I do.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    you could banish all typical, repeatable, pointless discussions to one day a week: "free-style Wednesdays" and reserve rest of the week for news that are actually new and educational. also could be interesting to see "no rules/mods friday".