4 ms·

I’ve had diplomatically phrased and cited comments on HN called an “inherent flamewar” because they go against hivemind consensus — eg, pointing out BLM leaders

I’ve had diplomatically phrased and cited comments on HN called an “inherent flamewar” because they go against hivemind consensus — eg, pointing out BLM leaders described themselves as “trained Marxists”. I think it’s reasonable people don’t want to present the profile on HN as their “first impression”. People have different aspects to themselves in different fora and that’s not only okay, but healthy.

Spivak 2y ago
I think what makes something like you describe become inflammatory isn't the surface level fact, after all you're just conveying information, but the underlying message you might have been trying to convey with that information which isn't necessarily as neutral. If you said something like: "I think it's cool that despite Marxism in America being a niche line of political thought thanks to our history that a movement as large and successful as Black Lives Matter was informed by Marxist thought due to its early leaders. And it seems that time has made Americans more open to Marxist ideas now that it isn't connected to a global conflict." I don't think that is inflammatory at all and very well meets the bar of intellectual curiosity HN looks for. But if you brought up this fact in the middle of a discussion of the moment then, whether you intended it as one or not, folks will likely read it as a dogwhistle since it became one in counterprotest circles.
- AlexeyBelov 2y ago
  So strange this comment got downvoted. It's reasonable and genuine, and doesn't seem to violate the guidelines. The guy above though definitely hides something.
curvaturearth 2y ago
[dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dang 2y ago
If you're going to post like this, you should supply links so readers can make up their own minds. We don't moderate when HN commenters "go against hivemind consensus". We moderate when they break the site guidelines. If you didn't do that, it should be straightforward to link to where the mods got it so wrong.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  You do — and you know you do, when the opinion is sufficiently controversial. I understand you present that open-minded veneer, but you happily violate it by calling opinions a flamewar or similar slight, then censoring for ideological non-conformity. You’re also being insincere by saying “we only do for violating the guidelines!” when “Eschew flamebait” is a guideline — and my accusation is that amounts to you censoring based on your (and the community’s) political biases. You’re dishonestly pretending I’m not discussing the biased way in which you apply that particular guideline — and intentionally ignoring my reference to “flame bait”/“flame war” in doing so. We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not interested in hunting down comments from over four years ago.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - buttercraft 2y ago
    If you say something like, "$fact $slur $ad_hominem $insult" and then you complain about being censored for $fact, you're being dishonest. We can all see the other shit you said. You're not fooling anybody.

Spivak 2y ago

I think what makes something like you describe become inflammatory isn't the surface level fact, after all you're just conveying information, but the underlying message you might have been trying to convey with that information which isn't necessarily as neutral. If you said something like: "I think it's cool that despite Marxism in America being a niche line of political thought thanks to our history that a movement as large and successful as Black Lives Matter was informed by Marxist thought due to its early leaders. And it seems that time has made Americans more open to Marxist ideas now that it isn't connected to a global conflict." I don't think that is inflammatory at all and very well meets the bar of intellectual curiosity HN looks for. But if you brought up this fact in the middle of a discussion of the moment then, whether you intended it as one or not, folks will likely read it as a dogwhistle since it became one in counterprotest circles.

AlexeyBelov 2y ago
So strange this comment got downvoted. It's reasonable and genuine, and doesn't seem to violate the guidelines. The guy above though definitely hides something.

curvaturearth 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dang 2y ago

If you're going to post like this, you should supply links so readers can make up their own minds. We don't moderate when HN commenters "go against hivemind consensus". We moderate when they break the site guidelines. If you didn't do that, it should be straightforward to link to where the mods got it so wrong.

zmgsabst 2y ago
You do — and you know you do, when the opinion is sufficiently controversial. I understand you present that open-minded veneer, but you happily violate it by calling opinions a flamewar or similar slight, then censoring for ideological non-conformity. You’re also being insincere by saying “we only do for violating the guidelines!” when “Eschew flamebait” is a guideline — and my accusation is that amounts to you censoring based on your (and the community’s) political biases. You’re dishonestly pretending I’m not discussing the biased way in which you apply that particular guideline — and intentionally ignoring my reference to “flame bait”/“flame war” in doing so. We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not interested in hunting down comments from over four years ago.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- buttercraft 2y ago
  If you say something like, "$fact $slur $ad_hominem $insult" and then you complain about being censored for $fact, you're being dishonest. We can all see the other shit you said. You're not fooling anybody.