15 ms·

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. That is not a good argument. The community you love has done damage to the society you depend on. I have no viciousn

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. That is not a good argument. The community you love has done damage to the society you depend on. I have no viciousness towards any one of them except where they insist on remaking society in their image to the detriment of all others. Ignorance through force of law would apply if the history were factual. But it's not. Preventing bad ideas from being taught is the opposite of codifying ignorance.

dang 4y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN or use it for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ghoward 4y ago
  Please define "perpetuate flamewars" for me because I don't understand how you use that phrase. I didn't attack the messenger, which is the definition of that phrase I usually use. I also very carefully only addressed the points the other person made. Edit: also, I have read your comment from a long time ago about the expected value of a discussion. Perhaps that is the definition you personally use? As in, you consider any comment to be "perpetuating flamewars" once it is made in a discussion with a lower expected value than you want to accept. I can't argue with that definition; in fact, I would accept it wholeheartedly, but (and this is just a suggestion) it might be better to make that the site guidelines, as well as to adjust your wording when you tell people to knock it off as you just did. For example, if you came to me and said, "The expected value of this discussion is lower than the value that this site can accept, so please stop this discussion here," I think I personally would take it much better than being accused of perpetuating flamewars. And I would be more likely to obey. You can still ban people for not obeying such requests too. I think you should. Anyway, I hope this comment was helpful.
  - dang 4y ago
    Your comments in this thread were doing ideological battle on a classic flamewar battlefront. You even used the word "fighting" to describe what you were doing. Surely you can understand how lines like ""wokeists" have caused so much damage to this country" and "The community you love has done damage to [...] society" are flamebait? If you get into back-and-forths with an opposing user around that kind of thing, you're perpetuating flamewar. This is clearly not curious conversation. I like your suggestion about expected value, and I'm glad you noticed that rather obscure point of mine - it's one of my pets. However, there are many ways to lower the expected value of a thread, and flamebait/flamewar is just one of them. I think it's important to be specific.
    - ghoward 4y ago
      > Your comments in this thread were doing ideological battle on a classic flamewar battlefront. You even used the word "fighting" to describe what you were doing. Surely you can understand how lines like ""wokeists" have caused so much damage to this country" and "The community you love has done damage to [...] society" are flamebait? No, not really. I was answering certain accusations with my opposing opinions. Unfortunately, I can't understand where a person is coming from if I don't understand their definitions of certain terms, and I can't understand your definitions of flamewar and flamebait. > If you get into back-and-forths with an opposing user around that kind of thing, you're perpetuating flamewar. This is clearly not curious conversation. I guess I misunderstand the purpose of HN because this line of yours makes it seem (to me) like I cannot debate political things at all, or rather, certain topics (does "around that kind of thing" means political things?), but that doesn't seem right either. > However, there are many ways to lower the expected value of a thread, and flamebait/flamewar is just one of them. That's why I think putting the lowering of the expected value of a thread into the guidelines is the right choice: it covers more situations. > I think it's important to be specific. I have shut off the discussion you didn't like, but it would be helpful to me if you were more specific about what you see as flamebait and flamewar. If I understand what you want me to not do, I'll avoid it, but I can't avoid something I'm unclear on. I also don't like self-censoring more than necessary (that is what the posted article was about, after all). However, I expect that you're busy and won't be able to answer me, so extra self-censoring might be what I have to do. It makes me sad, though; I felt like HN was one place where I didn't have to do that, and now, it does not. Edit: one thing that I could consider is trying to not answer every accusation that I'm a terrible person. Ten years ago, my Christian faith would not be attacked so openly. Now, people consider me a terrible person for believing those same things, and I find myself defending my faith a lot, albeit indirectly. I will try to do that less on HN at least. Would that be what you are doing of me?

dang 4y ago

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN or use it for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ghoward 4y ago
Please define "perpetuate flamewars" for me because I don't understand how you use that phrase. I didn't attack the messenger, which is the definition of that phrase I usually use. I also very carefully only addressed the points the other person made. Edit: also, I have read your comment from a long time ago about the expected value of a discussion. Perhaps that is the definition you personally use? As in, you consider any comment to be "perpetuating flamewars" once it is made in a discussion with a lower expected value than you want to accept. I can't argue with that definition; in fact, I would accept it wholeheartedly, but (and this is just a suggestion) it might be better to make that the site guidelines, as well as to adjust your wording when you tell people to knock it off as you just did. For example, if you came to me and said, "The expected value of this discussion is lower than the value that this site can accept, so please stop this discussion here," I think I personally would take it much better than being accused of perpetuating flamewars. And I would be more likely to obey. You can still ban people for not obeying such requests too. I think you should. Anyway, I hope this comment was helpful.
- dang 4y ago
  Your comments in this thread were doing ideological battle on a classic flamewar battlefront. You even used the word "fighting" to describe what you were doing. Surely you can understand how lines like ""wokeists" have caused so much damage to this country" and "The community you love has done damage to [...] society" are flamebait? If you get into back-and-forths with an opposing user around that kind of thing, you're perpetuating flamewar. This is clearly not curious conversation. I like your suggestion about expected value, and I'm glad you noticed that rather obscure point of mine - it's one of my pets. However, there are many ways to lower the expected value of a thread, and flamebait/flamewar is just one of them. I think it's important to be specific.
  - ghoward 4y ago
    > Your comments in this thread were doing ideological battle on a classic flamewar battlefront. You even used the word "fighting" to describe what you were doing. Surely you can understand how lines like ""wokeists" have caused so much damage to this country" and "The community you love has done damage to [...] society" are flamebait? No, not really. I was answering certain accusations with my opposing opinions. Unfortunately, I can't understand where a person is coming from if I don't understand their definitions of certain terms, and I can't understand your definitions of flamewar and flamebait. > If you get into back-and-forths with an opposing user around that kind of thing, you're perpetuating flamewar. This is clearly not curious conversation. I guess I misunderstand the purpose of HN because this line of yours makes it seem (to me) like I cannot debate political things at all, or rather, certain topics (does "around that kind of thing" means political things?), but that doesn't seem right either. > However, there are many ways to lower the expected value of a thread, and flamebait/flamewar is just one of them. That's why I think putting the lowering of the expected value of a thread into the guidelines is the right choice: it covers more situations. > I think it's important to be specific. I have shut off the discussion you didn't like, but it would be helpful to me if you were more specific about what you see as flamebait and flamewar. If I understand what you want me to not do, I'll avoid it, but I can't avoid something I'm unclear on. I also don't like self-censoring more than necessary (that is what the posted article was about, after all). However, I expect that you're busy and won't be able to answer me, so extra self-censoring might be what I have to do. It makes me sad, though; I felt like HN was one place where I didn't have to do that, and now, it does not. Edit: one thing that I could consider is trying to not answer every accusation that I'm a terrible person. Ten years ago, my Christian faith would not be attacked so openly. Now, people consider me a terrible person for believing those same things, and I find myself defending my faith a lot, albeit indirectly. I will try to do that less on HN at least. Would that be what you are doing of me?