zlacker

I've come around to the view that the randomness of enforcement (of any law or norm) can itself be a quite effective force multiplier at causing people to be on better behavior. It's the part that always seems unjust to someone; but then, if justice isn't the primary issue, it's a fair play. At least it's not selective enforcement.

>>noduer+(OP)
There is that.

And though I suspect dang would respond that everyone sees bias against their own specific viewpoint, this particular pattern seems persistent, plays into well-established truth-to-power dynamics (where truth is disadvantaged), and specifically as concerns policy, has been repeatedly defended by dang.

Put another way, HN's alignment is to curiosity and discussion rather than truth or fairness. I've already touched on many of the considerations that factor into this above, and why I remain unconvinced by those arguments.

>>dredmo+Re
FWIW, the things I've been warned, banned, and hell-banned for on this site have never struck me as consistent enough in their application that I could discern a pattern other than the fact that I'm usually drunk and belligerent when I write them. The fact that they happen to be railing against powers that be isn't too unusual; I would have quit the site if I thought I couldn't speak my mind, as long as I speak it in ways that contribute to the conversation and aren't just throwing grenades. Don't get me wrong, I love intelligent flame wars. But on reflection, I actually more appreciate the components of a good flame war that fall into the discussion category rather than the truth paradigm. At least, y'know, there's a time and place, and there are well-defined rules. If a site says it's interested in X and you're interested in Y, at least they've made their preferences clear. In a free market they survive or they don't. I think that imagining that it's lesser to seek curiosity/discussion (which are fairly concrete, defined parameters) than to seek truth/fairness (and here we get into a kind of Romantic vs Enlightenment argument as to whether these words align with particular actions) is to try to stake a higher ground on vague claims of higher "morality" which some might agree with, others not so much, but which don't ultimately aid in the day-to-day function of moderation unless someone decides what "truth" is. Personally I'd rather take the beating of being banned for saying something rude or unhelpful than I would take a beating on a site where someone gets to decide what's true or fair.

>>noduer+mj
As much as I disagree with the tone-policing of dissent and/or protest, there is an art to disagreement or countering ... um ... let's call it careless thought with style. And if nothing else, HN's policies have encouraged me to cultivate that.

One of my personal faves was responding to what struck me as a somewhat unthinking response to the true reality at the time of the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum by the 79 CE eruption of Mount Vesuvius, here: <>>22132283 >.

Another addressed common tropes from Wealth of Nations: <>>17965681 >.

I've increasingly taken to responding to highly disinformational or misinformed commentary by simply linking an authoritative rebutting item, occasionally quoting the specific element that addresses the point in question. E.g., <>>33999668 > and <>>27284014 >.

I'll also, when the argument seems to be circling rather than progressing, leave as my last response (if any) a link to a previous comment of mine in the thread, to make clear that I'd already addressed that point.

And much of that is not with the goal of convincing the person I'm responding to directly, but in addressing the wider audience. Though occasionally the former seems to occur: <>>36550938 >.