4 ms·

Presumably by "all" you mean everyone except the poster who specifically asked for this post? I agree the post is hardly relevant to the discussion, but for so

Presumably by "all" you mean everyone except the poster who specifically asked for this post? I agree the post is hardly relevant to the discussion, but for some reason the user posting actual content gets downvoted to oblivion while the user who sidetracks the discussion and adds nothing gets upvotes. Well done HN.

jlgreco 14y ago
I cannot downvote. This entire conversion is out of line though as far as I am concerned (primarily because it brings out posts like the one I responded to).
- jewbacca 14y ago
  It seems like you are objecting to the post based on the alignment of its content. Not the depth of its content, not the relevance of its content to the discussion, but because it offends your sensibilities and you would rather not see it. THAT is an attitude that has not historically been welcome on HN. At least, when I started coming here and fell in love with the place. I have no interest in reading an echo chamber.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I am objecting to the content of the post because I don't think bigotry has any place in a civil conversation. If this guy was a stormfront guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)) instead of a "socially conservative" guy, you would never dream of entertaining him.
    - jewbacca 14y ago
      Whether or not the person behind that post is personally bigoted, their post is a valuable contribution to the conversation that was happening* because it represents, with relatively solid reasoning and in uncommon depth, a viewpoint that was otherwise absent. A viewpoint that is absolutely relevant to the wider public conversation on the subject, and one that, even/especially if one happens to be on the other side of the issue, it is very valuable to understand. It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News. I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here. More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo. ----- * I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I guess we will have to disagree on the value and civility of articulate bigotry.

jlgreco 14y ago

I cannot downvote. This entire conversion is out of line though as far as I am concerned (primarily because it brings out posts like the one I responded to).

jewbacca 14y ago
It seems like you are objecting to the post based on the alignment of its content. Not the depth of its content, not the relevance of its content to the discussion, but because it offends your sensibilities and you would rather not see it. THAT is an attitude that has not historically been welcome on HN. At least, when I started coming here and fell in love with the place. I have no interest in reading an echo chamber.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I am objecting to the content of the post because I don't think bigotry has any place in a civil conversation. If this guy was a stormfront guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)) instead of a "socially conservative" guy, you would never dream of entertaining him.
  - jewbacca 14y ago
    Whether or not the person behind that post is personally bigoted, their post is a valuable contribution to the conversation that was happening* because it represents, with relatively solid reasoning and in uncommon depth, a viewpoint that was otherwise absent. A viewpoint that is absolutely relevant to the wider public conversation on the subject, and one that, even/especially if one happens to be on the other side of the issue, it is very valuable to understand. It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News. I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here. More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo. ----- * I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I guess we will have to disagree on the value and civility of articulate bigotry.