4 ms·

No it's not... The GP's accusations of gatekeeping and dishonesty led me to deduce he was making assumptions about political leaning rather than a more respect

by FloorEgg 10mo ago

No it's not... The GP's accusations of gatekeeping and dishonesty led me to deduce he was making assumptions about political leaning rather than a more respectful interpretation being to protect intellectually curious dialog. Then parent made a comment about how political categorization doesn't matter when I can share an ideology with a political official out side of my jurisdiction. So I think I reasonably asked a clarifying question about whether I was being assumed an ideology for my stance of the interpretation of HN guidelines. I asked this because I couldn't see any other reason why parent would have brought up ideology or made that comment. This is certainly not sealioning. I am not trolling, I am not harassing, I am not demanding evidence or attempting to disrupt dialog. I was only trying to clarify parents point and reason for introducing ideology into the dialog.

UncleMeat 10mo ago
I interpret the conversation totally differently. This person was extremely clear with you. This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post. The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place.
- FloorEgg 10mo ago
  > This person It's two different people. If I zoom out and look at the whole thread, I can take a more generous view of your criticism and acknowledge that I could have been more direct rather than leading through questions. I still don't think that's sealioning, but I wasn't as clear and patient as I could have been or want to show up here. I am doing my best and trying to get better. The issue I think is that the HN guidelines have two different sets of criteria for on-topic and off-topic. With a bit more time to reflect, it seems like the people who think this submission is on-topic are only looking at the on-topic criteria set and not really considering the off-topic criteria set. They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it. The comment two up from the one you replied to was not my best and does warrant some criticism, and I think that's the one that probably triggered you to make the sealioning accusation, even though I disagree with that particular classification. > The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place Spell it out for me please. What exactly are you accusing me of? This entire thread has been hostile to me but keeps beating around the bush. Are you saying that HN mods and I are protecting Grok in a biased way? > This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post. It definitely isn't, as it hits multiple criteria for off-topic as stated clearly in the HN guidelines.
  - UncleMeat 10mo ago
    > They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it. Yes they are. We considered it and came to a different conclusion than you. We believe that this topic does foster intellectually curious dialog and your insistence that we don't is frustrating. > Not if the topic consistently devolves away from intellectually curious dialog. There are clearly a lot of charged emotions and strong opinions across most of these comments. IMO, this is the core problem. Charged emotions and strong opinions are not the opposite of intellectually curious dialog. An insistence that conversation play out like an abstract game separated from all feeling is anathema to useful communication, in my opinion. People are not better, smarter, or more interesting by being dispassionate. Especially when the topic is wide scale mass abuse and harassment. Feelings are not bad.
    - FloorEgg 10mo ago
      Okay, well my goal here was to communicate a benefit of the doubt most respectful interpretation of the moderators decision, and how it can be justified by the official HN guidelines. While I could have been a lot more clear from the start, I think I've done my part. You can disagree with me and assume bad faith if you want. That's your choice.
      - UncleMeat 10mo ago
        The flags don't come from moderators. They come from users.
        FloorEgg 10mo ago
        Thank you for pointing this out to me. I didn't understand how that worked and it very much changed my perspective on this whole thread.
      - soraminazuki 10mo ago
        It's revealing that you're repeatedly framing your decision as someone else's. Did you not see the flag button that you yourself pressed? And I'm assuming you did press it, because you so vehemently argue in favor of flagging this submission.

UncleMeat 10mo ago

I interpret the conversation totally differently. This person was extremely clear with you. This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post. The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place.

FloorEgg 10mo ago
> This person It's two different people. If I zoom out and look at the whole thread, I can take a more generous view of your criticism and acknowledge that I could have been more direct rather than leading through questions. I still don't think that's sealioning, but I wasn't as clear and patient as I could have been or want to show up here. I am doing my best and trying to get better. The issue I think is that the HN guidelines have two different sets of criteria for on-topic and off-topic. With a bit more time to reflect, it seems like the people who think this submission is on-topic are only looking at the on-topic criteria set and not really considering the off-topic criteria set. They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it. The comment two up from the one you replied to was not my best and does warrant some criticism, and I think that's the one that probably triggered you to make the sealioning accusation, even though I disagree with that particular classification. > The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place Spell it out for me please. What exactly are you accusing me of? This entire thread has been hostile to me but keeps beating around the bush. Are you saying that HN mods and I are protecting Grok in a biased way? > This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post. It definitely isn't, as it hits multiple criteria for off-topic as stated clearly in the HN guidelines.
- UncleMeat 10mo ago
  > They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it. Yes they are. We considered it and came to a different conclusion than you. We believe that this topic does foster intellectually curious dialog and your insistence that we don't is frustrating. > Not if the topic consistently devolves away from intellectually curious dialog. There are clearly a lot of charged emotions and strong opinions across most of these comments. IMO, this is the core problem. Charged emotions and strong opinions are not the opposite of intellectually curious dialog. An insistence that conversation play out like an abstract game separated from all feeling is anathema to useful communication, in my opinion. People are not better, smarter, or more interesting by being dispassionate. Especially when the topic is wide scale mass abuse and harassment. Feelings are not bad.
  - FloorEgg 10mo ago
    Okay, well my goal here was to communicate a benefit of the doubt most respectful interpretation of the moderators decision, and how it can be justified by the official HN guidelines. While I could have been a lot more clear from the start, I think I've done my part. You can disagree with me and assume bad faith if you want. That's your choice.
    - UncleMeat 10mo ago
      The flags don't come from moderators. They come from users.
      - FloorEgg 10mo ago
        Thank you for pointing this out to me. I didn't understand how that worked and it very much changed my perspective on this whole thread.
    - soraminazuki 10mo ago
      It's revealing that you're repeatedly framing your decision as someone else's. Did you not see the flag button that you yourself pressed? And I'm assuming you did press it, because you so vehemently argue in favor of flagging this submission.