4 ms·
> I said, "why can't you handle a little incivility" I echo PG when I say that it's a slippery slope. There's no value N for incivility that someone won't take
by richardw 14y ago
> I said, "why can't you handle a little incivility"
I echo PG when I say that it's a slippery slope. There's no value N for incivility that someone won't take to N+1. Besides, why are you the person to measure how much incivility should be allowed? Just be civil. Not hard.
> self-righteous whiners
> tight ass stifled pedants who contribute nothing
> anal retentive
> douchebag
> some fucking idiot
> Boy Scout
> holier-than-thou
> passive aggression
Is that a little incivility? That's just a bunch of angry attempts at belittling others, based entirely on your perspective and zero facts. We can fill HN up with that, but I'm not sure it would improve the place.
> I would much prefer a forum full of passionate hackers with strong opinions who express original ideas in an uncivil way
1) Doesn't compute. HN is full of passionate people. Raganwald seems to be one, but you reject what he's passionate about. So must people only be passionate about your ideas, or others?
2) You've told me various times how you would prefer this or that. It's not about you.
So, summary:
Your points are all about what type of boy-scout-god-fearin' bad men are restricting your self-expression, and how you'd prefer a forum which was a free-for-all. There are many fora for self-expression and ranting and just sticking it to the man. But rather than posting there, you stick with the one with a stated civility policy and alter it to suit your preferences. I think that's what you accused Raganwald of. You're doing what you despise.
It's okay to follow some rules. These ones are so easy to follow and it doesn't affect my day at all to do so. I'd rather find the real issues in the world and fight those, or break rules that really matter.
Don't assume you know me, my background, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), why I'm doing something or anything that has no basis in fact. It sounds nice and angry, but all you're doing is arguing against some picture in your head, but diluting your core argument about the facts. Besides, you might find I'm closer to your opinion on most of the issues you post about. Just not this one.
In any case, this is my last post on the issue. Bigger fish to fry.
- forensic 14y agoThis whole discussion is about personal preference and opinion. The original post and all of the posts that followed. If you think there is any objective fact to be had here, you're crazy. I'm a long-time user of HN, reporting my experience, and so it is about me, just as much as it is about raganwald's desire for people to be even more civil than they currently are. P.S. I'm not literally calling anyone Christian. Equating a behaviour to Puritanism is a rhetorical device to illustrate a point. I think you and I may be communicating on completely separate dimensions...
- richardw 14y agoDammit, I hate breaking my last-post rule. > If you think there is any objective fact to be had here, you're crazy. FACT: PG asked us to be civil. FACT: the dictionary defines civil. FACT: you're not being civil according to that definition. A moral relativism escape attempt doesn't change that. FACT: Raganwald's post requesting more civility got 650 votes and stayed on the front page for ages. There are many who would like more of that. FACT: many other websites don't mind how aggressive you are. FACT: you're resorting to name-calling and generalisations rather than arguing the point. FACT: you said this: >> Could we not have strong emotions about tablets and phones without calling each other names? > No. Well, I think I can claim as a fact that we can have a debate while I remain significantly more civil than you have. I don't think it would have been a better one if I hadn't.
- forensic 14y agoThose are so NOT facts. You're such a bean counter. Civility is totally in the eye of the beholder. It's defined as politeness, which is a disgustingly relative concept. Perhaps there is some gradation of civility, where you are holier than I am, but the question for HN is not who is the holiest, the question is where the threshold is, and what action to take. My argument is that censorship is far more objectionable than the problem it supposedly solves. Let's grant that you're more civil than I am. Does that make you RIGHT? Does that make you BETTER THAN ME? What is your payoff for that? Are you going to Heaven and I'm going to Hell? pg asks people to be civil, therefore civility is more important than intellectual contribution, civility is more important than quality content? Civility becomes a higher value than the PURPOSE of the forum? No. Civility is at best a 3rd order value. The primary value of the forum is interesting content, and lame ass Wikipedia editors DO NOT provide that. I'll take 1 tptacek, who is passionate enough to tell complete idiots to STFU, rather than 100 perfectly civil but dry and worthless unoriginal pedants who quote the Bible and worship rule books. "NEENER NEENER I'M MORE CIVIL THAN YOU!" Congratu-fucking-lations. That's really not much of an accomplishment is it?
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoYou can be right, and civil, at the same time. There's not a dichotomy here.