Comment by _wldu
6 years ago
Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?
6 years ago
Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?
The problem is that it's a vicious circle. You can't attempt to understand/reason with someone going against societal norms otherwise you will be seen by your peers as agreeing with that person and thus ostracized because they themselves do not want to be seen as understanding/reasoning with someone (you) that now appears to be going against societal norms.
this forum literally hides opinions people disagree with.
The up and down arrow are really bad icons for UX.
I think the up and down arrows are perfect representations for what they do: "I want people to see this" vs "I don't want people to see this".
The problem is when someone believes that people shouldn't see any opinions that they disagree with. How do you stop them from downvoting substantive content? Personally I don't think changing the icons will help
I don't entirely agree. I think that upvote and a flag, placed elsewhere, would have a substantial difference.
1 reply →
HN/reddit moderation is extremely basic compared to the stuff Slashdot had 20 years ago.
We desperately need forum software with better forms of moderation.
2 replies →
In my experience on HN, downvoted comments are almost exclusively low-effort, spammy, immature, etc. I'm not sure I've ever noticed an insightful dissenting comment downvoted here.
The [-] allows you to hide the most popular threads and dig for hidden gold. I do this often.
> I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with.
I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate I have a hard time continuing.
> I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with
The right may take the cake as far as hypocrisy goes in general, but the one thing that pisses me off the most about the left is their lip service to open-mindedness. I often wonder if they do in fact believe it themselves.
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas
With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science", I suppose there won't be much left to debate soon enough.
I don't know if you are implying that I'm from the left. I'm not either left or right, although as the right has moved righter I guess I have become relatively more left by staying in the middle :)
> With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science"
I agree this is a danger. But in my original comment, I'm referring to basics. Evidence has mounted that masks work, yet people still physically fight over wearing one. Evidence has mounted (IMO overwhelmingly) that HCQ does not work and is even dangerous, yet people keep saying that's all they need to survive COVID. Then there are the anti-vaxxers. It's a concern that even after a vaccine is found, it's possible not enough people will even get the vaccine to reach herd immunity[1].
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/05/04/a-majority-of-vaccine...
4 replies →
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
“Yes clearly other people are stupid. The only ideas that should be exposed to the public are my own ideas. People other than myself apparently don’t have functioning brains, or they would all think what I think. So instead I must fight to have all opposing ideas erased.”
Not even close. People have to start with a shared foundation to have a discussion. Agreeing that 1+1=2 is a start. How about agreeing that the earth is round? Agreeing that critiquing research, and gasp changing our minds when the evidence mounts is the goal. Let's pick a weirdly controversial topic - masks. Evidence is mounting/has mounted that masks work, yet people want to fight over wearing one.
1 reply →
That's what it means to truly disagree with someone- to hate them.
Your policy is still the one that brought us down this path, and will (or has) plunge the western public into a debilitating purity spiral, as the overton windows shrinks and more and more viewpoints become 'clearly x-ist' or 'provably wrong', according to the crowd.
Good! Let it all burn.
Could you explain what you mean by true disagreement with someone is equivalent to hating them?
1 reply →
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
I don’t think anyone is appealing to others to listen to their racist, anti-science ideas so much as demanding that they be accepted and if not a mob may be sent after them. I wish it were only “appeals to listen”.
Yeah whenever people on here allude to 'what you can't say' it usually boils down to the same few very specific ideas, none of which are particularly secret, original or new. Hell, if you're a tenured professor, billionaire or anyone in a position of power whining about 'what you can't say' I find it hard to take you seriously.
People are getting fired and publicly shamed for statements and actions made one, two decades ago. It’s entirely reasonable to be afraid of speaking something acceptable but unpopular today out of fear that it will be unacceptable tomorrow.
1 reply →
Even if they're not too afraid for themselves, they might be for other people in more tenuous positions than them.
1 reply →