zlacker

>>apolli+(OP)
I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work.

(downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....)

>>pksdjf+cJ3
Please don't post political flamebait to Hacker News, and please don't downvote-bait. Both those things are in the site guidelines, and if you'd review and follow them, we'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>>dang+zK3
Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.

>>pksdjf+xL3
No. Work with political implications and articles about it are just that, not 'flamebait'. 'Old lady I disagree with lol' is "political flamebait" only through an exceptionally stoic application of the principle of charity.

>>pvg+bO3
I honestly don't understand the distinction? The article is legit, because somehow it has authority by being published in a random media outlet? Is that it? Whereas my opinion is "flamebait" because I don't have authority?

Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on.

If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age.

And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait".

That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.

>>pksdjf+XO3
The distinction is the article is some personal recollections about an author whose, you know, actual literary work many (including plenty who don't agree with her) consider important and your comment is a generic dismissal barely even related to said article. As distinctions go, it doesn't seem like a very difficult one to make.

>>pvg+wR3
So it's wrong not because it's political but because it's "generic"? Or because you believe it's a poor argument? Those aren't against HN guidelines. "Political flamebait" seems to involve in no small part disagreement withtm the majority.

>>big_ch+K64
Generic tangents are indeed against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and there's a long body of explanations about why: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you take a look at that and there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.

It's important that moderation based on "political flamebait" not simply reduce to the political preferences of the moderators. We work consciously at that, and have years of practice. I don't think there's any political position that we haven't moderated (and even banned) users for expressing in ways that break the site guidelines.

One dynamic that affects this is that when people are disagreeing with the majority, they often feel defensive, which causes them to lash out more in ways that break the site rules more. Then we moderate them for that, which makes them sure that they're being moderated because of their views, which makes them more defensive and lash out even more. This is a tricky one. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...