4 ms·

What about this do you perceive to be flamebait or a generic tangent? I’m directly and sincerely commenting on the article. Plenty of other comments are expres

by loeg 2y ago

What about this do you perceive to be flamebait or a generic tangent? I’m directly and sincerely commenting on the article. Plenty of other comments are expressing either support or criticism of the policy change.

dang 2y ago
The comment didn't respond to anything specific in the article. It just used it as a springboard to make a generic comment about a much more general topic. That's what I mean by generic tangent. Generic tangents always make threads less interesting, because they take attention away from the specifics of what's new in an article and direct it instead to one of the large pre-existing topics that people tend to fixate on. I sometimes compare this to a spacecraft flying too close to a black hole and getting sucked in: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20black%20hole&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... It was flamebait in two ways: (1) Generic tangents on inflammatory topics are already flamebait; and (2) the comment makes a huge assumption (that the previous situation was "racism / sexism") and treats that as fact without substantiating it. Large unsubstantiated claims about inflammatory topics are also flamebait.
- loeg 2y ago
  Many many other top-level comments are similarly non-specific to anything in the article and more or less generic springboards. But you didn't respond to them in the same way. shrug. That DEI policies were an form of racism/sexism is not an especially novel or heterodox opinion. Opinions aren't facts and can't be substantiated. And I think agnostics and even DEI promoters can correctly infer why detractors would perceive these policies to be racist/sexist in nature without elaborating in depth. Rayiner writes substantially the same comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42663406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42663406
  - nibbles 2y ago
    [dead]
  - dang 2y ago
    You're probably right about other comments but I'd have to see specific links to be able to say anything about them. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, and therefore makes you feel like moderation is inconsistent and unfair, the most likely explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to reading all of what gets posted here. There's just far too much. You (or anyone) can help by flagging posts that break the guidelines, and in egregious cases, emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... It's true that moderation knobs would probably be turned up on comments like "DEI is just racist/sexist", not because we agree or disagree one way or the other, but because those are flamewar clichés. The main thing we're trying to avoid is repetition, especially flaming repetition. What we want here is curious conversation, which seeks new things to look into and talk about.
nibbles 2y ago
[dead]

by loeg 2y ago

dang 2y ago

The comment didn't respond to anything specific in the article. It just used it as a springboard to make a generic comment about a much more general topic. That's what I mean by generic tangent. Generic tangents always make threads less interesting, because they take attention away from the specifics of what's new in an article and direct it instead to one of the large pre-existing topics that people tend to fixate on. I sometimes compare this to a spacecraft flying too close to a black hole and getting sucked in: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20black%20hole&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... It was flamebait in two ways: (1) Generic tangents on inflammatory topics are already flamebait; and (2) the comment makes a huge assumption (that the previous situation was "racism / sexism") and treats that as fact without substantiating it. Large unsubstantiated claims about inflammatory topics are also flamebait.

loeg 2y ago
Many many other top-level comments are similarly non-specific to anything in the article and more or less generic springboards. But you didn't respond to them in the same way. shrug. That DEI policies were an form of racism/sexism is not an especially novel or heterodox opinion. Opinions aren't facts and can't be substantiated. And I think agnostics and even DEI promoters can correctly infer why detractors would perceive these policies to be racist/sexist in nature without elaborating in depth. Rayiner writes substantially the same comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42663406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42663406
- nibbles 2y ago
  [dead]
- dang 2y ago
  You're probably right about other comments but I'd have to see specific links to be able to say anything about them. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, and therefore makes you feel like moderation is inconsistent and unfair, the most likely explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to reading all of what gets posted here. There's just far too much. You (or anyone) can help by flagging posts that break the guidelines, and in egregious cases, emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... It's true that moderation knobs would probably be turned up on comments like "DEI is just racist/sexist", not because we agree or disagree one way or the other, but because those are flamewar clichés. The main thing we're trying to avoid is repetition, especially flaming repetition. What we want here is curious conversation, which seeks new things to look into and talk about.

nibbles 2y ago

[dead]