2 ms·

The Paradox of Tolerance may have been a valid idea as proposed by Popper, but the way it is generally invoked in contemporary internet debates is not really co

by tomhow 1y ago

The Paradox of Tolerance may have been a valid idea as proposed by Popper, but the way it is generally invoked in contemporary internet debates is not really compatible with the HN guidelines. He was proposing it as a last step before a debate turns into violence. On HN we're not meant to act as though a hot war is about to break out unless we break the guidelines. The guidelines call on us to converse curiously, even if we think the other party is not doing so. They call on us to de-escalate, not find justifications for escalation. If someone else on HN is breaking the guidelines, we should flag their comments and move on. If we want discussions on HN to be more curious, we should lead by example.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
>The guidelines call on us to converse curiously, even if we think the other party is not doing so. They call on us to de-escalate, not find justifications for escalation. That's fair, and I've flagged a few here. I don't think the above comment I replied to was flag worthy (having a bad take =/= having bad faith), but I do feel like it's a "borderline" comment that can either end in providing knowledge to someone, or devolving into a flame war. I just feel kind of icky that I may need to "bait out" a bad faith actor. I'm not trying to "gotcha" someone and flag their account. But I know just having that mentality by itself is a bad way to approach conversation. At the same time I also want to have have a charitable interpretation first and be able to point out certain points, no matter how seemingly obvious it is. It's an awkward balance.
- tomhow 1y ago
  We'd encourage you to resist the inclination to think of others as "bad faith actors". The guidelines ask us to assume good faith, and in my experience, most people on HN sincerely believe in their positions. That doesn't stop people being wrong, of course. But not many people here are deliberately dishonest. Sometimes people have a hard time believing that others could be sincere in their positions, because those positions seem so unfamiliar and so far outside credibility. But usually that's just a sign that we don't spend enough time talking to people who think very differently to us. We hope HN can be one of the better places to do that, but it requires us to come here with a spirit of openness.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    My biggest fear is that they are sincere. "Of course it's the minorires' fault" in 90+% of contexts is a very dire stance. And if we misaligned so much that we can't even agree on a point as base as "Do I have a right to exist", then that's when I know it's time to find another community. Those are the kinds of "curiosities" I'd not like to explore at this stage of my life.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      I don’t understand the characterization here. This debate is about a minority of senators and the procedure of voting for or against senate resolutions. Of course if anyone posts comments denying a minority in society's “right to exist”, that user would be banned on HN.

by tomhow 1y ago

johnnyanmac 1y ago

>The guidelines call on us to converse curiously, even if we think the other party is not doing so. They call on us to de-escalate, not find justifications for escalation. That's fair, and I've flagged a few here. I don't think the above comment I replied to was flag worthy (having a bad take =/= having bad faith), but I do feel like it's a "borderline" comment that can either end in providing knowledge to someone, or devolving into a flame war. I just feel kind of icky that I may need to "bait out" a bad faith actor. I'm not trying to "gotcha" someone and flag their account. But I know just having that mentality by itself is a bad way to approach conversation. At the same time I also want to have have a charitable interpretation first and be able to point out certain points, no matter how seemingly obvious it is. It's an awkward balance.

tomhow 1y ago
We'd encourage you to resist the inclination to think of others as "bad faith actors". The guidelines ask us to assume good faith, and in my experience, most people on HN sincerely believe in their positions. That doesn't stop people being wrong, of course. But not many people here are deliberately dishonest. Sometimes people have a hard time believing that others could be sincere in their positions, because those positions seem so unfamiliar and so far outside credibility. But usually that's just a sign that we don't spend enough time talking to people who think very differently to us. We hope HN can be one of the better places to do that, but it requires us to come here with a spirit of openness.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  My biggest fear is that they are sincere. "Of course it's the minorires' fault" in 90+% of contexts is a very dire stance. And if we misaligned so much that we can't even agree on a point as base as "Do I have a right to exist", then that's when I know it's time to find another community. Those are the kinds of "curiosities" I'd not like to explore at this stage of my life.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    I don’t understand the characterization here. This debate is about a minority of senators and the procedure of voting for or against senate resolutions. Of course if anyone posts comments denying a minority in society's “right to exist”, that user would be banned on HN.