4 ms·
The sad statement about the level of discourse is that you apparently care about it but still think granparent comment qualifies. It even breaks the first two
by hoopd 11y ago
The sad statement about the level of discourse is that you apparently care about it but still think granparent comment qualifies. It even breaks the first two rules of HN commenting guidelines: be civil, don't call people names.
- obstinate 11y agoI'm cool with calling sexists names, HN guidelines notwithstanding.
- hoopd 11y agoMaybe you only speak of the future of discourse because it's a deep sounding insult, but if you actually care I encourage you to read this essay and reconsider your acceptance of namecalling. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- obstinate 11y agoI have read this essay a number of times. While I agree it is great, it has an assumption of good faith on the part of the counterparty that I find unsubstantiated in terms of sexists, including many of the anti-Pao folks in this thread. If your discourse consists mostly of repeating unsubstantiated rumors or outright falsehoods, or are otherwise laced with misogyny, like the induhviduals who have made comments about her husband, I feel there's a point at which it is fine for me to give up on you. At that point, the best way to raise the level of discourse is to remove the bad actors from the conversation.
- hoopd 11y agoThe reason to set a higher bar is this: in a heated debate where core beliefs are being challenged there will always a temptation to decide you're dealing with an idiot or a monster even when you aren't.
- obstinate 11y agoI understand the theory. I do not believe that this is the optimal approach in practice.
- danbolt 11y agoIf you don't mind me asking, perhaps you could give a reason why you feel this isn't always the optimal approach? I can certainly understand that it's not exactly the most pleasant thing to do at times, but I feel as though it's an ideal where the side effects of striving for it are beneficial. It would mean a lot of me to hear your take on it.
- obstinate 11y agoOf course I do not mind. I believe ostracization and marginalization have historically been more effective for this type of objectionable opinion. The main differentiating factor is that misogyny is not rooted in reason. Thus, reason is an ineffective tool for attacking it, especially on the internet.
- hoopd 11y agoI'm not saying misogyny is rooted in reason, I'm saying the social justice movement has a habit of misclassifying opposing viewpoints as misogyny in order to dismiss them.
- mrbtie 11y agoDo you have any reason to believe that name-calling is the optimal way to "remove the bad actors from the conversation"? In my experience, its only likely outcome is the destruction of potentially healthy debate.
- obstinate 11y agoThere is nothing potentially healthy about the kind of smear campaign happening in this thread. If we saw no discussion of her husband, the posts that she did not actually remove, or claims that she extorted kp or lied about things that happened, then maybe.