zlacker

[parent] [thread] 10 comments
1. Jupite+(OP)[view] [source] 2016-01-26 11:56:27
Unfortunately to my eyes the comment that dang thanked looked like it was a rather passive aggressive put down. Especially in the context that the OP was not being petty but was raising an important point in a measured way.

EDIT Civility is important but it should not be confused for everyone having the same point of view on a topic. And censorship by "civility" causes people to not join discussions. When I come to HN I want a intelligent but lively discussion. However, some issues have reached such a consensus such that even well thought out opposing views put politely get heavily downvoted.

replies(4): >>tomhow+k2 >>brudge+2a >>mikeas+te >>krapp+ng
2. tomhow+k2[view] [source] 2016-01-26 12:43:13
>>Jupite+(OP)
Think about it this way...

Imagine you were the caretaker of a public establishment like a school or business, and news broke of the passing of an eminent person who was deeply respected and admired by many of the people who frequent that establishment.

So you went and lowered the flag to half-mast, because that is the customary and respectful thing to do. And whilst most people appreciated the gesture and felt comforted by the shared sense of mourning and respect for the deceased person, a small minority erupted into a noisy debate about how appropriate it was to lower the flag, and whether someone else was more worthy of having the flag lowered in their honour, etc.

If you can imagine this scenario in real life, you can understand how dang feels when this kind of argument erupts on a bereavement thread on a site he runs and cares so deeply about cultivating as a pleasant site to visit.

He can't be the one to call people out for being insensitive, but he can at least say "Thank you" to someone who does, and who in doing so, gives him some much-needed reassurance about the level of emotional intelligence around this place.

Discussions about the merits of customs and policies on the site are fair enough, but if we're to be as humane and compassionate online as we would try to be offline, the time and place of the mourning and honouring of a just-deceased person is not the right time and place.

replies(1): >>Jupite+B4
◧◩
3. Jupite+B4[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-26 13:25:57
>>tomhow+k2
I can see this from both POV...

Just reverse that situation and imagine that you are a member of a public establishment and that when certain people you particularly respect pass that public establishment does not follow its usual customs.

replies(1): >>tomhow+m5
◧◩◪
4. tomhow+m5[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-26 13:38:15
>>Jupite+B4
If/when it happens, you'd politely discuss it with the caretaker and others in the establishment (just like what happens here when someone says "hey can we have the black bar?"), and you'd then respect the consensus outcome. And if the caretaker and the other members rebuked such a request that was important to you, it would be fair enough to express your feelings then and there, and discuss it to the point of resolution.

That isn't what's happened here.

Seriously, civil behaviour around a bereavement is just not that hard.

Respectfully, I won't be commenting further on this thread.

5. brudge+2a[view] [source] 2016-01-26 14:47:06
>>Jupite+(OP)
The user dang is the moderator. A charitable reading of his comment would be that dang was relieved that someone else was responding to the subthread in a way consistent with his sense of how people should act on Hacker News.

Meta-discussion of the black bar is intellectually uninteresting at best. Off topic in the middle. And disrespectful of people's grief at worst. The least of these is reason enough to downvote.

replies(1): >>Jupite+GK
6. mikeas+te[view] [source] 2016-01-26 15:31:50
>>Jupite+(OP)
It's not a passive aggressive put down, it's just regular aggression with sarcasm. I straight up called it "extremely distasteful" in the prior comment.

You don't have to have the same point of view on this topic, just don't take a discussion of a recently dead person being officially mourned by the site owner as an opportunity to criticize that.

If this "censorship" (which is far from it) causes people who are going to argue over mourning to not join the discussion, then mission accomplished.

7. krapp+ng[view] [source] 2016-01-26 15:49:42
>>Jupite+(OP)
On reflection, I think mikeash is correct. The civil thing to do on my part would have been to not bring the subject up, as there's a time and place for everything, and this thread was probably neither. I accidentally created exactly the sort of noise I wanted to avoid. It would be better to expect more of people.
replies(1): >>dang+2C
◧◩
8. dang+2C[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-26 19:24:04
>>krapp+ng
Thank you as well.
◧◩
9. Jupite+GK[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-26 20:38:53
>>brudge+2a
I know very well that dang is a moderator. I had expected that a moderator would actually consider the site's own guidelines when someone displays what they describe in their own words as "regular aggression with sarcasm"+.

+ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10973857

replies(2): >>brudge+qQ >>dang+ky1
◧◩◪
10. brudge+qQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-26 21:24:47
>>Jupite+GK
I don't read it that way.
◧◩◪
11. dang+ky1[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-01-27 08:28:55
>>Jupite+GK
My comment was posted before mikeash described his comment that way, so unless you think we should be mind-readers, that's a hindsight fallacy. I never dreamt he was being sarcastic. In fact I still can't read his comment that way—to me it remains a striking expression of the right values of this site.

If I squint, I guess I can see that use of the word "civilized" as a bit aggressive, but really I think Mike was being hyperbolic for effect in his later description.

[go to top]