3 ms·

The amount of comments on this that are getting flagged whilst meeting the guidelines is making me question the state of HN as a platform for rational good fait

by rcarr 3y ago

The amount of comments on this that are getting flagged whilst meeting the guidelines is making me question the state of HN as a platform for rational good faith debate. Has tribalism really took over here too?

judge2020 3y ago
Have some examples? The few I see are things like victim-blaming (37576676 37576735) or just "innocent until proven guilty" which adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
- bluedays 3y ago
  Your observation underscores a fundamental challenge in public discourse: determining which contributions substantively further a conversation. While the repeated mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" or instances that may appear as victim-blaming can feel redundant or unproductive to some, for others, these comments might encapsulate deeply held beliefs or concerns. Recognizing this, it's crucial to appreciate the multiplicity of perspectives. However, true progress in any debate relies on a collective willingness to delve deeper, to move beyond surface-level assertions and to engage with the nuanced complexities of the issue at hand. Dismissing certain viewpoints as merely "adding nothing" can inhibit this deeper exploration. We should endeavor to foster an environment where contributors feel empowered to expand upon their initial sentiments, illuminating the reasons behind them. Only then can we bridge understanding and foster a richer, more productive dialogue.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    do AI-generated comments add to the discussion?
    - bluedays 3y ago
      More so than snarky rhetorical questions and baseless accusations, I’d wager. But, by all means, let’s elevate the discussion.
- rcarr 3y ago
  Well for one, I don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" posts should be flagged. Maybe they don't add much to the conversation, but people should be allowed to express such a simple sentiment without being flagged to death, just ignore them and move on. Flagging is equivalent to silencing someone, and I don't think we should be doing that apart from cases of obvious hate speech such as racism. Personally, I found the 37576735 comment interesting because I hadn't thought of this in the context of statue of limitations, even if it does come across a little victim blaming. And the victim blaming was called out and addressed by other comments. In general I think this is the better approach to flagging - state what you disagree and try to change minds rather than just flagging it outright. This seems like a reasonable statement to make if the author disagrees with the censorship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 And this is my comment that got flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 By flagging my comment I have no idea what people dislike about it - I presume it's the anti mainstream media stance but I don't know. I'm open to having my mind changed and my thoughts challenged but that can't happen if people can no longer engage with my comment because it's flagged. Personally, I thought it added context, particularly for non-British readers, about the UK media, laws and cultural landscape and how it plays into all of this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by rcarr 3y ago

judge2020 3y ago

Have some examples? The few I see are things like victim-blaming (37576676 37576735) or just "innocent until proven guilty" which adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

bluedays 3y ago
Your observation underscores a fundamental challenge in public discourse: determining which contributions substantively further a conversation. While the repeated mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" or instances that may appear as victim-blaming can feel redundant or unproductive to some, for others, these comments might encapsulate deeply held beliefs or concerns. Recognizing this, it's crucial to appreciate the multiplicity of perspectives. However, true progress in any debate relies on a collective willingness to delve deeper, to move beyond surface-level assertions and to engage with the nuanced complexities of the issue at hand. Dismissing certain viewpoints as merely "adding nothing" can inhibit this deeper exploration. We should endeavor to foster an environment where contributors feel empowered to expand upon their initial sentiments, illuminating the reasons behind them. Only then can we bridge understanding and foster a richer, more productive dialogue.
- judge2020 3y ago
  do AI-generated comments add to the discussion?
  - bluedays 3y ago
    More so than snarky rhetorical questions and baseless accusations, I’d wager. But, by all means, let’s elevate the discussion.
rcarr 3y ago
Well for one, I don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" posts should be flagged. Maybe they don't add much to the conversation, but people should be allowed to express such a simple sentiment without being flagged to death, just ignore them and move on. Flagging is equivalent to silencing someone, and I don't think we should be doing that apart from cases of obvious hate speech such as racism. Personally, I found the 37576735 comment interesting because I hadn't thought of this in the context of statue of limitations, even if it does come across a little victim blaming. And the victim blaming was called out and addressed by other comments. In general I think this is the better approach to flagging - state what you disagree and try to change minds rather than just flagging it outright. This seems like a reasonable statement to make if the author disagrees with the censorship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 And this is my comment that got flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 By flagging my comment I have no idea what people dislike about it - I presume it's the anti mainstream media stance but I don't know. I'm open to having my mind changed and my thoughts challenged but that can't happen if people can no longer engage with my comment because it's flagged. Personally, I thought it added context, particularly for non-British readers, about the UK media, laws and cultural landscape and how it plays into all of this.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]