3 ms·

I posted this article precisely because I'm not one of "the anti-warming folks". The tribal aspect of this debate somehow manages to be both boring and corrosi

I posted this article precisely because I'm not one of "the anti-warming folks". The tribal aspect of this debate somehow manages to be both boring and corrosive, so I ignore it when I can. This article is special because its facts aren't in dispute, and yet still tend to cast doubt on the consensus view that I, at least, thought was the truth. The discussion between "the anti-warming folks" and "the other guys" has been ongoing for some time on this site: http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming Have you always taken the position that global warming is not hacker news? Or has something changed so that is was hacker news before and isn't any longer?

davidw 17y ago
I flag anything that has anything to do with it, pro or contra.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  Bravo. HN would be a better site if more people did that. Particularly on Sundays. I have a few bête noir topics I try to moderate away, too, but I tend to draw the line at explicit endorsements of one side over another in a tribal conflict. I can see how it would make sense to just excise tribal issues and have done, though.
- pg 17y ago
  The fact that a topic is treated by some people as a religious dispute doesn't mean articles about it can't be interesting. By flagging stuff without even reading it, you're behaving as mindlessly as the partisans on each side.
  - timr 17y ago
    I agree that the articles are sometimes interesting, but they're frequently just re-hashes, posted as platforms for ranting comment threads by the same handful of people. It would be nice if there was a flag-like mechanism for the community to turn off comments on articles like this one. It seems that if the karma incentive was reduced on political articles, people would have less incentive to post the thoughtless ones.
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      It seems that if the karma incentive was reduced on political articles, people would have less incentive to post the thoughtless ones. This is backwards. Usenet had political flamewars despite having no karma. People post to political threads because it makes them feel good to stick up for their particular causes. Emotions that reward us for signaling our allegiances and general loyalty are one of the cognitive adaptations that allow our species to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma to benefit from cooperation, specialization, and trade. Start reading Robin Hanson: http://www.overcomingbias.com http://www.overcomingbias.com or Comeuppance: http://www.amazon.com/Comeuppance-Altruistic-Punishment-Biological-Components/dp/0674026314 http://www.amazon.com/Comeuppance-Altruistic-Punishment-Biol...
      - timr 17y ago
        I didn't suggest that it would eliminate the flamewars (if only!) However, I do think it would cut down on the incentive to start them. Flamewars on Usenet were hard to ignore, and easy to propagate. How would people start flamewars on HN if they can't comment?
  - davidw 17y ago
    I think 'mindless' is unfair. I flag them because I have seen that these articles/topics regularly degrade into junk and so I do not want to see them on this site. So I have a strategy based on my own observations of how sites like this work.

davidw 17y ago

I flag anything that has anything to do with it, pro or contra.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
Bravo. HN would be a better site if more people did that. Particularly on Sundays. I have a few bête noir topics I try to moderate away, too, but I tend to draw the line at explicit endorsements of one side over another in a tribal conflict. I can see how it would make sense to just excise tribal issues and have done, though.
pg 17y ago
The fact that a topic is treated by some people as a religious dispute doesn't mean articles about it can't be interesting. By flagging stuff without even reading it, you're behaving as mindlessly as the partisans on each side.
- timr 17y ago
  I agree that the articles are sometimes interesting, but they're frequently just re-hashes, posted as platforms for ranting comment threads by the same handful of people. It would be nice if there was a flag-like mechanism for the community to turn off comments on articles like this one. It seems that if the karma incentive was reduced on political articles, people would have less incentive to post the thoughtless ones.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    It seems that if the karma incentive was reduced on political articles, people would have less incentive to post the thoughtless ones. This is backwards. Usenet had political flamewars despite having no karma. People post to political threads because it makes them feel good to stick up for their particular causes. Emotions that reward us for signaling our allegiances and general loyalty are one of the cognitive adaptations that allow our species to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma to benefit from cooperation, specialization, and trade. Start reading Robin Hanson: http://www.overcomingbias.com http://www.overcomingbias.com or Comeuppance: http://www.amazon.com/Comeuppance-Altruistic-Punishment-Biological-Components/dp/0674026314 http://www.amazon.com/Comeuppance-Altruistic-Punishment-Biol...
    - timr 17y ago
      I didn't suggest that it would eliminate the flamewars (if only!) However, I do think it would cut down on the incentive to start them. Flamewars on Usenet were hard to ignore, and easy to propagate. How would people start flamewars on HN if they can't comment?
- davidw 17y ago
  I think 'mindless' is unfair. I flag them because I have seen that these articles/topics regularly degrade into junk and so I do not want to see them on this site. So I have a strategy based on my own observations of how sites like this work.