6 ms·

This 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 t

This 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 ago
Dammit, 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 ago
  Those 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 ago
    You can be right, and civil, at the same time. There's not a dichotomy here.
    - forensic 14y ago
      just because people "CAN" doesn't mean they WILL 3 binary dimensions: - original / trite - civility / rude - correct / incorrect leading to 8 kinds of people 1. original, correct, civil 2. original, correct, rude 3. original, incorrect, civil 4. original, incorrect, rude 5. trite, incorrect, civil 6. trite, incorrect, rude 7. trite, correct, civil 8. trite, correct, rude 6 and 8 are acknowledged as non-issues on HN, since they get downvoted and ignored. 7 is the most destructive force of all, because trite things get automatic upvotes. So if we must have these "Tell HN" posts, we should direct our attention to people who are civil, technically correct, trite, and miss the forest for the trees. The greatest enemy of 7 is 2, and so if you outlaw rude people you outlaw 2 causing 7 to proliferate like a catchphrase on reddit. 2 may be somewhat objectionable, but since originality and correctness are higher values than civility for Hackers, their presence should be tolerated. Tptacek is arguably one of the most valuable HNers around and if 2s were suppressed he would no longer be here. 3 and 4 drive discussion and so are basically valuable. While 4 can be obnoxious and you wouldn't want to have a beer with him, at the very least his inaccurate but original sayings do simulate interesting discussion and provoke 1 and 2 to post. A lot of very tremendous posts were motivated by the horrible statements of a 4. So 4s do have a kind of value. Anyway, the worst thing this forum could do is encourage 7s and outlawing rude people would basically give the forum over to 7s. All the 1s and 3s would flee--civil people don't fight back against the invading zombie horde.
      - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
        That's quite a lot of conclusion from a little theory. I'd like to think that civil, thoughtful people will continue regardless, maybe that's naieve. There's a space-time component to this, so like most logic diagrams it throws a monkey wrench into the works. Suppressing rude comments may actually coerce folks (like me) into trying to be more civil than they might. This can actually breed more 3's from 4s for instance.

richardw 14y ago

Dammit, 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 ago
Those 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 ago
  You can be right, and civil, at the same time. There's not a dichotomy here.
  - forensic 14y ago
    just because people "CAN" doesn't mean they WILL 3 binary dimensions: - original / trite - civility / rude - correct / incorrect leading to 8 kinds of people 1. original, correct, civil 2. original, correct, rude 3. original, incorrect, civil 4. original, incorrect, rude 5. trite, incorrect, civil 6. trite, incorrect, rude 7. trite, correct, civil 8. trite, correct, rude 6 and 8 are acknowledged as non-issues on HN, since they get downvoted and ignored. 7 is the most destructive force of all, because trite things get automatic upvotes. So if we must have these "Tell HN" posts, we should direct our attention to people who are civil, technically correct, trite, and miss the forest for the trees. The greatest enemy of 7 is 2, and so if you outlaw rude people you outlaw 2 causing 7 to proliferate like a catchphrase on reddit. 2 may be somewhat objectionable, but since originality and correctness are higher values than civility for Hackers, their presence should be tolerated. Tptacek is arguably one of the most valuable HNers around and if 2s were suppressed he would no longer be here. 3 and 4 drive discussion and so are basically valuable. While 4 can be obnoxious and you wouldn't want to have a beer with him, at the very least his inaccurate but original sayings do simulate interesting discussion and provoke 1 and 2 to post. A lot of very tremendous posts were motivated by the horrible statements of a 4. So 4s do have a kind of value. Anyway, the worst thing this forum could do is encourage 7s and outlawing rude people would basically give the forum over to 7s. All the 1s and 3s would flee--civil people don't fight back against the invading zombie horde.
    - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      That's quite a lot of conclusion from a little theory. I'd like to think that civil, thoughtful people will continue regardless, maybe that's naieve. There's a space-time component to this, so like most logic diagrams it throws a monkey wrench into the works. Suppressing rude comments may actually coerce folks (like me) into trying to be more civil than they might. This can actually breed more 3's from 4s for instance.