3 ms·

"Not thriv[ing]" is not the same as being quashed. Minority opinions don't always rise to the popularity or acceptance level of majority opinions, and that's OK

"Not thriv[ing]" is not the same as being quashed. Minority opinions don't always rise to the popularity or acceptance level of majority opinions, and that's OK.

kccqzy 2y ago
Let us not use the word "thrive" or "quash" to avoid misunderstandings. To rephrase, I hope that on HN even minority opinions have reasonable rebuttals. Unfortunately what currently happens is people flag minority opinions with no discussion.
- otterley 2y ago
  I agree that that's not a best practice. It's not what the downvote mechanism was intended for.
  - tracker1 2y ago
    In a way, iirc, it really is. It's as much a "I disagree" as it is "I don't like this". That said, I would like to see more people actually respond in addition to a downvote. I don't think that's generally a function of the moderators though.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad. That's why I have only flagged one or two posts, ever, but not because I was mad, but because the comment was just plain beyond the pale. And my posts against portaying violent rape in film got flagged. Make it make sense, because I understand the failure of this system because systems are my trade-in-craft.
    - jraph 2y ago
      Nope, sometimes I would have a rebuttal but flagging is the better option (constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect, and/or don't feed the troll). Or, the comment doesn't even have anything to refute, it's just disrespectful or it's spam, or both. I have flagged a few comments but I'm rarely mad. And if one is mad because of a disrespectful comment, the flagging is probably appropriate too.
      - MrMcCall 2y ago
        > constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect Yes, indeed.
    - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
      > Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad This is cope, just like "I'm being downvoted for speaking the truth!". Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them". I suggest you try to steelman the idea of flagging and see that maybe there could be other things at play.
      - MrMcCall 2y ago
        > Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them". Precisely. That's the biggest problem with closed-minded fools.
        AlexeyBelov 2y ago
        I don't understand your point, sorry. Or maybe you misunderstand (on purpose?). I'm saying you attribute those downvotes incorrectly. It's maybe natural to do so as an instinct -- "those people are against me!" -- but on HN it's expected to be a bit more introspective. It's incorrect to say that "people downvote because I'm right" or "people downvote because they have nothing to say".
        MrMcCall 2y ago
        [dead]
        otterley 2y ago
        > To be 'ignorant' requires willfully _ignoring_ the truth No it doesn't. To borrow from the law, ignorance requires no scienter. It simply means you lack knowledge of factual or situational context, willfully or otherwise.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  "flag" and "downvote" are two different tools with two different purposes. "downvote" seems more appropriate for for "this is not interesting and should be less prominent". "flag" seems more appropriate for "this should not be here at all". By way of an example, on a political story, if you say something merely unpopular, you'll get downvotes and replies; if you say something hateful, you'll (usually) get flagged.
  - kccqzy 2y ago
    I agree with you, but that's not what happens for polarizing topics that are technical in nature and not political. People on HN seem to flag comments rather than downvote them.

"Not thriv[ing]" is not the same as being quashed. Minority opinions don't always rise to the popularity or acceptance level of majority opinions, and that's OK.

kccqzy 2y ago

Let us not use the word "thrive" or "quash" to avoid misunderstandings. To rephrase, I hope that on HN even minority opinions have reasonable rebuttals. Unfortunately what currently happens is people flag minority opinions with no discussion.

otterley 2y ago
I agree that that's not a best practice. It's not what the downvote mechanism was intended for.
- tracker1 2y ago
  In a way, iirc, it really is. It's as much a "I disagree" as it is "I don't like this". That said, I would like to see more people actually respond in addition to a downvote. I don't think that's generally a function of the moderators though.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad. That's why I have only flagged one or two posts, ever, but not because I was mad, but because the comment was just plain beyond the pale. And my posts against portaying violent rape in film got flagged. Make it make sense, because I understand the failure of this system because systems are my trade-in-craft.
  - jraph 2y ago
    Nope, sometimes I would have a rebuttal but flagging is the better option (constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect, and/or don't feed the troll). Or, the comment doesn't even have anything to refute, it's just disrespectful or it's spam, or both. I have flagged a few comments but I'm rarely mad. And if one is mad because of a disrespectful comment, the flagging is probably appropriate too.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      > constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect Yes, indeed.
  - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
    > Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad This is cope, just like "I'm being downvoted for speaking the truth!". Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them". I suggest you try to steelman the idea of flagging and see that maybe there could be other things at play.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      > Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them". Precisely. That's the biggest problem with closed-minded fools.
      - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
        I don't understand your point, sorry. Or maybe you misunderstand (on purpose?). I'm saying you attribute those downvotes incorrectly. It's maybe natural to do so as an instinct -- "those people are against me!" -- but on HN it's expected to be a bit more introspective. It's incorrect to say that "people downvote because I'm right" or "people downvote because they have nothing to say".
        MrMcCall 2y ago
        [dead]
        otterley 2y ago
        > To be 'ignorant' requires willfully _ignoring_ the truth No it doesn't. To borrow from the law, ignorance requires no scienter. It simply means you lack knowledge of factual or situational context, willfully or otherwise.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
"flag" and "downvote" are two different tools with two different purposes. "downvote" seems more appropriate for for "this is not interesting and should be less prominent". "flag" seems more appropriate for "this should not be here at all". By way of an example, on a political story, if you say something merely unpopular, you'll get downvotes and replies; if you say something hateful, you'll (usually) get flagged.
- kccqzy 2y ago
  I agree with you, but that's not what happens for polarizing topics that are technical in nature and not political. People on HN seem to flag comments rather than downvote them.