zlacker

I come to HN to discuss ideas. What's the difference between an "ideological battle" and discussing ideas?

>>mkolod+(OP)
HN is focussed mainly on technology ideology, not a political one strictly.

>>mkolod+(OP)
Because idealogical battles are very rarely what a reasonable person would describe as a discussion. They're often just two sides shouting over each other.

>>mkolod+(OP)
I think ideological battle is a matter of the manner of discussing ideas. Hallmarks include: posting the same argument in multiple places within a thread and in multiple threads in a short timespan; dragging a peripherally related discussion toward well-known contentious issues; repeating popular catchphrases, slogans and talking points with little regard for how well they apply to the specific instance of a topic under discussion; using shallow predictable arguments of the sort found in TV sound bites rather than more sound and nuanced arguments; little or no participation in non-political threads on HN; refusing to acknowledge the weaknesses or downsides of your own positions; making lots of pronouncements and declarations rather than asking lots of questions.

>>mkolod+(OP)
ideological battle: Burn the heretics! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ὁμοιούσιον! ὁμοούσιον!

discussing ideas: What do the heretics think? How much do we (up to substitution of vocabulary) agree upon? What parts of the heresy are worth stealing and rebranding as orthodoxy? For that matter, what is the relative importance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, anyway?

compare "WE DON'T DANCE": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23591306

>>mkolod+(OP)
In my experience on highly political threads, the battle is in the votes more than the discussion.