4 ms·

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

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.

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.