zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. dang+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-01-19 02:49:50
This was guaranteed to produce an off-topic flamewar, one which HN has already litigated to death and well into zombieland. Please don't do that here.

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

replies(1): >>whatyo+bb
2. whatyo+bb[view] [source] 2018-01-19 06:14:51
>>dang+(OP)
Hasn't the topic of the article already been "litigated to death" and been the subject of many flame wars?

In what manner is that twitter link "off-topic" in the context of this article?

Has the twitter link ever been discussed here rather than killed?

I, for one, found it quite surprising. Based on news coverage and personal interactions with Googlers, I had no idea people were writing such things without reprimand from HR. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this link is the most substantive and thought-provoking comment in the entire thread.

replies(2): >>malvos+Di >>dang+Em
◧◩
3. malvos+Di[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 08:52:47
>>whatyo+bb
This is what I don't understand. I'm now being threatened with being banned while adamsea is getting a slap on the wrist. If you're only allowed to discuss one side of this topic without getting kicked off HN, why even allow the threads in the first place?

I was responding to the question:

> Could you elaborate on the form of the attacks on white people and men you're seeing in SV companies?

What could I have done to answer that without posting some evidence?

replies(1): >>dang+9n
◧◩
4. dang+Em[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 10:06:38
>>whatyo+bb
It's a matter of degree. If you think we need more Damore wars, HN is not the site you're looking for.

No, I wouldn't say the current submission's topic has been done to death at all, though I grant you that it touches on topics that have. But it's the other parts that led us to try turning off flags on the story. I would not call the experiment successful.

Part of the art of substantive discussion, which is always in peril on the internet, is (1) to stay in the places that aren't already scorched earth and (2) not scorch them. There is constant temptation to do otherwise, and we all need the discipline to resist it. Generic flamewar topics are black holes that suck in everything that comes their way, so resistance isn't easy, but it's needed.

replies(1): >>whatyo+fs
◧◩◪
5. dang+9n[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 10:16:28
>>malvos+Di
I answered you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062, which should clarify most of this.

I can see why, before reading that, you might think this was a double standard, but it isn't. The reason is that adamsea hasn't been using HN primarily for political battle (though I grant you his account history is close to that, and a different moderator might have called it differently). The key word here is 'primarily', which is the test we use, as explained in that comment I just linked to. I didn't reply to you on the basis of one isolated comment but rather on your use of HN overall, which is what we care about.

It's false, of course, that you're "only allowed to discuss one side of this topic without getting kicked off HN". If that were true, we wouldn't have flamewars, and boy do we have flamewars.

replies(1): >>malvos+xk1
◧◩◪
6. whatyo+fs[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 11:52:54
>>dang+Em
I am still glad to have been informed of what the tweet revealed, but thank you for the clear response. It provides a good explanation for what appeared indefensible.
replies(1): >>dang+cl1
◧◩◪◨
7. malvos+xk1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 19:19:27
>>dang+9n
Got it. I used to post on other stuff but dropped off and admittedly came back to discuss what I feel are attacks on our industry and my personal career story.

If I commented more on “regular” posts, would I still be able to chime in here? It’s important to me that this point of view gets representation. I try to keep it very civil and can continue to refine that.

replies(1): >>dang+Ao1
◧◩◪◨
8. dang+cl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 19:24:11
>>whatyo+fs
Thanks for posting this. I sometimes feel a bit hopeless about typing out those detailed explanations, when no one seems interested in receiving the information, so the counterexample is tonic.
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. dang+Ao1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-01-19 19:49:19
>>malvos+xk1
Right, the idea is to be here to gratify intellectual curiosity. People who use HN that way and occasionally comment on a political topic as one of many things they're interested in, tend not to have so toxic an effect on the site. I think it's partly a question of the spirit one is in the habit of adopting here.
[go to top]