zlacker

> It was because, when the thread was getting going, it flooded with crap comments

Why did you listed a comment supporting abolishing the monarchy an example of "crap comments"?

>>arinle+(OP)
(Not a moderator, but this is an easy case.)

Because they were crap comments. They'd have been crap comments if they were pro-monarchy, too. One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".

>>tptace+m
> One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment,

I did not referred to that comment.

> and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".

The comment you're trying to misrepresent was "Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid.", and afterwards, once the downvotes started to flow, was edited with "Edit: yall actually support monarchies? cringe asf lmao"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043

Why do you feel that opposing the concept of a monarchy should be censored in a discussion on a topic which naturally involves replacing a monarch?

>>arinle+(OP)
They were crap comments because they were low-information, high-indignation name-calling. Comments like that are noise—and destructive noise at that—regardless of the position they favor. They could be arguing that 2+2=4 and be just as terrible.

This should be obvious if you've read HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

>>arinle+e2
Nobody feels that. It's plain why the comment was singled out, and it has nothing to do with its point of view, other than the contempt that it had for the community it was posted on.

>>arinle+e2
I'm not against republicanism. Your example, 'Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid', is not an interesting or well though-out comment. If that's all the effort this commenter felt like giving to this forum, then it should be down-voted.

>>frakki+q3
A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. "Fucking stupid" is an apt description of monarchism in this day and age.

>>steve_+0e
It's low effort.

>>steve_+0e
> A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments?

Concisely: this argument is unconvincing.

> Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting.

But how do you know it is "fake nuance" rather than genuine explanation? By being uncharitable?

>>arinle+e2
I’ll happily read an HN debate on the monarchy all day long.

But I don’t see Dang censoring a robust, thoughtful discussion of abolishing the monarchy here. He shut down a cheap, childish comment that was followed by an even cheaper, vulgar dismissal of people who don’t already agree with the original “comment”.

>>arinle+e2
dude if it was about javascript being 'cringe asf lmao' it'd get downvoted straight down to hades.

>>steve_+0e
Concision means expressing a lot of information in few tokens.

Name-calling and other kinds of fulmination don't express much information.