4 ms·

I respect your judgment, so I've edited out the first bit, but honestly I feel it's not an unreasonable thing to say in response to genocide denial - it was sai

by swores 1y ago

I respect your judgment, so I've edited out the first bit, but honestly I feel it's not an unreasonable thing to say in response to genocide denial - it was said about the claim, not about the person, and in my opinion it's an accurate description of that claim. /my two cents

dang 1y ago
I don't disagree with that. From a moderation point of view, it's a question of the effect that these bits have on other people in the community, and therefore the quality of the discussion. It's obviously near-impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about a topic like this across the vast differences (ideological, national, emotional) that separate people. In such a context, even provocations that feel small and justified can set the neighborhood on fire. If the discussion devolves into just another internet screaming match where people hurl pre-existing talking points and just get even more riled up in rage, then the HN thread is a failure. Maybe it's too much to hope for anything better on this topic, which is probably the most divisive and emotional one we've ever seen, but I think we have to try. That's we allow the topic to appear on the HN front page from time to time. Not to allow it would be easier, at least in the short term, but inconsistent with the intended spirit of the site. The bulk of your post wasn't doing anything like flamewar at all, so the swipey bits were particularly unfortunate. p.s. I don't mean to pile on, but "please stop pretending" is also a swipe. You can't know whether someone else is pretending, and there's no reason to suppose that people aren't sincere in their convictions about a highly-charged topic (separately from whether their beliefs are true or false). If you lead by denying that, the rest of what you have to say will have little chance of being heard.
- callumb 1y ago
  Why not just get rid of the whole post? It's not relevant to HN and the comments range from uninteresting to terrible.
  - dang 1y ago
    As I said in the GP comment, I believe we have to try, because it would be inconsistent with the intended spirit of this site not to. I don't agree that it isn't relevant to HN. The central value of this site is intellectual curiosity, construed broadly (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you try to define that in a way that detaches from larger human concerns, you make it smaller. Curiosity doesn't benefit from that. There are many reasons to be unhappy with these threads and how the topic lands on HN generally. I am by no means happy—I just don't think that the alternative is better. Curiosity ultimately has to do with relating to what's real and true. You can't impose a narrow view of on- and off-topcicness on that. Trying to keep HN true to those values is subject to a thousand constraints, some obvious, many not. That means the problem can never be solved—not to everyone's satisfaction, nor even to anyone's satisfaction. Therefore we all have a certain amount of dissatisfaction to tolerate.
    - callumb 1y ago
      Have you seen any comments on this submission that demonstrate intellectual curiosity? It's just flamewarring and complaints as far as I can see, at this point. Sorry but I think you made the wrong call here.
      - mhb 1y ago
        I agree that the wrong call was made. I'm also curious why this particular post is the one which was chosen as the poster child on which to set aside the rules and allow "thoughtful" discussion.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Because then you can't moderate just one side of the discussion. Unfortunately, there's a clear pattern here.
    - 1y ago

by swores 1y ago

dang 1y ago

I don't disagree with that. From a moderation point of view, it's a question of the effect that these bits have on other people in the community, and therefore the quality of the discussion. It's obviously near-impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about a topic like this across the vast differences (ideological, national, emotional) that separate people. In such a context, even provocations that feel small and justified can set the neighborhood on fire. If the discussion devolves into just another internet screaming match where people hurl pre-existing talking points and just get even more riled up in rage, then the HN thread is a failure. Maybe it's too much to hope for anything better on this topic, which is probably the most divisive and emotional one we've ever seen, but I think we have to try. That's we allow the topic to appear on the HN front page from time to time. Not to allow it would be easier, at least in the short term, but inconsistent with the intended spirit of the site. The bulk of your post wasn't doing anything like flamewar at all, so the swipey bits were particularly unfortunate. p.s. I don't mean to pile on, but "please stop pretending" is also a swipe. You can't know whether someone else is pretending, and there's no reason to suppose that people aren't sincere in their convictions about a highly-charged topic (separately from whether their beliefs are true or false). If you lead by denying that, the rest of what you have to say will have little chance of being heard.

callumb 1y ago
Why not just get rid of the whole post? It's not relevant to HN and the comments range from uninteresting to terrible.
- dang 1y ago
  As I said in the GP comment, I believe we have to try, because it would be inconsistent with the intended spirit of this site not to. I don't agree that it isn't relevant to HN. The central value of this site is intellectual curiosity, construed broadly (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you try to define that in a way that detaches from larger human concerns, you make it smaller. Curiosity doesn't benefit from that. There are many reasons to be unhappy with these threads and how the topic lands on HN generally. I am by no means happy—I just don't think that the alternative is better. Curiosity ultimately has to do with relating to what's real and true. You can't impose a narrow view of on- and off-topcicness on that. Trying to keep HN true to those values is subject to a thousand constraints, some obvious, many not. That means the problem can never be solved—not to everyone's satisfaction, nor even to anyone's satisfaction. Therefore we all have a certain amount of dissatisfaction to tolerate.
  - callumb 1y ago
    Have you seen any comments on this submission that demonstrate intellectual curiosity? It's just flamewarring and complaints as far as I can see, at this point. Sorry but I think you made the wrong call here.
    - mhb 1y ago
      I agree that the wrong call was made. I'm also curious why this particular post is the one which was chosen as the poster child on which to set aside the rules and allow "thoughtful" discussion.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Because then you can't moderate just one side of the discussion. Unfortunately, there's a clear pattern here.
  - 1y ago