8 ms·

HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups. This topic in particular clearly is and also garnered a lot of interest. Arguably a majori

HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups. This topic in particular clearly is and also garnered a lot of interest. Arguably a majority might actually be interested in discussing this topic as they might be perceived as a majority and be potential targets of this kind of discrimination. When an ideologically possessed social justice minority then in violation of HN policy and the interest of the audience remove it from the frontpage that is problematic. It is also disingenuous to say this happens to articles on the prevailing viewpoint to the same degree. Articles on Damore and Fowler was plentiful, and they were not voted off the frontpage. The sin of oppressing critical viewpoints in the valley falls squarely on the social justice warriors.

root_axis 9y ago
You sound exactly like the "ideologically possessed social justice minority" you're castigating. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682604
- throwaway1584 9y ago
  The difference is that I believe in a sense of justice and recourse, and that is something social justice warriors do not believe in for their actions. I also believe that evidence can prove me wrong, which is clearly outside the realm of social justice warriors. I continue to seek out evidence when forming my opinions, and do not form ideas uncritically in my head.
grzm 9y ago
> "HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups." Something along these lines is often-cited, but isn't supported by the guidelines or by comments by the moderators. From the guidelines: > "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Discussions on contentious issues very quickly devolve on HN: it's not built to support them well, and many members recognize that. You're right, these are important issues and they should be discussed, but HN empirically has not been proven to be a good place to do so. And rehashing the same arguments time and again is almost the definition of not interesting. Your posting via a throwaway account is anecdotal evidence of this. That's not a judgment, that's just a reflection of how it is. Likewise your assumption that curation on HN is due to "an ideologically possessed social justice minority": that's not a assumption that engenders the foundation of good faith that discussion on contentious topics desperately needs. Regardless of other factors at play that make discussions like this difficult (and I agree they're myriad), this is one that is destructive, rather than constructive. And please don't confuse this stance as normative. Hopefully we'll figure out better ways to use things like online forums for working through issues, but we haven't done that yet. Want to have better, deeper discussions on difficult topics? One thing you can do yourself is conduct yourself in a manner that makes that possible. Build a reputation with a regular account so people can trust that you're engaging in good faith, and assume that people are behaving reasonably for reasons that may not be clear to you or you may disagree with before deciding that they're unreasonable.
- hncensorship 9y ago
  While I appreciated your clarity with regards to the instant dead-ing, I think your response here shows a disconnect with the reality of taking a position counter to the status quo on many of these issues. To associate viewpoints with your real identity that regularly involve a spectrum of mob justice and workplace dismissals seems foolish in the current climate. If you doubt such a climate, I'd ask you to examine the post which you un-deaded, observe that it is now re-flagged and re-dead, and I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified. Even on my primary account wherein I substantial reputation, I would not touch threads like this with a ten foot pole, let alone express my honest opinions. My livelihood is far too important to risk even over a topic which I consider as worthy of discussion as this. I'd also address your statement that this is "the same argument time and again". This (OP) is material evidence coming out that adds critical depth to an issue that thus far has been painted as very uni-directional, and is, in my opinion, going to influence the next N years of tech workplace culture in dramatic ways. If HackerNews can't handle this well, why can't we take this as impetus to think deeply about that? (With the additional datapoint that discussions "on this topic" that support the status quo seem to be maintained, whereas those that oppose it vanish, so I might suggest the topic itself spawning unproductive discussions isn't the problem)
  - grzm 9y ago
    > *"I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified." To be clear, I'm not a moderator. My comments are a reflection of what I've seen on HN with respect to what works and what doesn't.
- throwaway1584 9y ago
  That’s very reasonable. Maybe there are new functionality that can be implemented to at least bring back to the frontpage flagged articles of interest to the majority? I think there needs to be a punishment function for ideologically motivated flagging and maybe even other actions done by such a minority, so that it cause the articles to stay on the frontpage longer when brought back in order to dissuade the behavior.

root_axis 9y ago

You sound exactly like the "ideologically possessed social justice minority" you're castigating. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682604

throwaway1584 9y ago
The difference is that I believe in a sense of justice and recourse, and that is something social justice warriors do not believe in for their actions. I also believe that evidence can prove me wrong, which is clearly outside the realm of social justice warriors. I continue to seek out evidence when forming my opinions, and do not form ideas uncritically in my head.

grzm 9y ago

> "HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups." Something along these lines is often-cited, but isn't supported by the guidelines or by comments by the moderators. From the guidelines: > "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Discussions on contentious issues very quickly devolve on HN: it's not built to support them well, and many members recognize that. You're right, these are important issues and they should be discussed, but HN empirically has not been proven to be a good place to do so. And rehashing the same arguments time and again is almost the definition of not interesting. Your posting via a throwaway account is anecdotal evidence of this. That's not a judgment, that's just a reflection of how it is. Likewise your assumption that curation on HN is due to "an ideologically possessed social justice minority": that's not a assumption that engenders the foundation of good faith that discussion on contentious topics desperately needs. Regardless of other factors at play that make discussions like this difficult (and I agree they're myriad), this is one that is destructive, rather than constructive. And please don't confuse this stance as normative. Hopefully we'll figure out better ways to use things like online forums for working through issues, but we haven't done that yet. Want to have better, deeper discussions on difficult topics? One thing you can do yourself is conduct yourself in a manner that makes that possible. Build a reputation with a regular account so people can trust that you're engaging in good faith, and assume that people are behaving reasonably for reasons that may not be clear to you or you may disagree with before deciding that they're unreasonable.

hncensorship 9y ago
While I appreciated your clarity with regards to the instant dead-ing, I think your response here shows a disconnect with the reality of taking a position counter to the status quo on many of these issues. To associate viewpoints with your real identity that regularly involve a spectrum of mob justice and workplace dismissals seems foolish in the current climate. If you doubt such a climate, I'd ask you to examine the post which you un-deaded, observe that it is now re-flagged and re-dead, and I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified. Even on my primary account wherein I substantial reputation, I would not touch threads like this with a ten foot pole, let alone express my honest opinions. My livelihood is far too important to risk even over a topic which I consider as worthy of discussion as this. I'd also address your statement that this is "the same argument time and again". This (OP) is material evidence coming out that adds critical depth to an issue that thus far has been painted as very uni-directional, and is, in my opinion, going to influence the next N years of tech workplace culture in dramatic ways. If HackerNews can't handle this well, why can't we take this as impetus to think deeply about that? (With the additional datapoint that discussions "on this topic" that support the status quo seem to be maintained, whereas those that oppose it vanish, so I might suggest the topic itself spawning unproductive discussions isn't the problem)
- grzm 9y ago
  > *"I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified." To be clear, I'm not a moderator. My comments are a reflection of what I've seen on HN with respect to what works and what doesn't.
throwaway1584 9y ago
That’s very reasonable. Maybe there are new functionality that can be implemented to at least bring back to the frontpage flagged articles of interest to the majority? I think there needs to be a punishment function for ideologically motivated flagging and maybe even other actions done by such a minority, so that it cause the articles to stay on the frontpage longer when brought back in order to dissuade the behavior.