Comment by dang
1 year ago
Yes, and we won't let HN turn into a current affairs site, but this site has always had a certain amount of political content, and that's why this particular thread is happening. For more information, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 and the links there.
Is there a reason why Oct 7th (the massacre that started this escalation) was not discussed?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&...
I haven't gone back to check this, but I assume users flagged the posts and moderators didn't turn off the flags.
We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. That isn't possible in the immediate aftermath of a shocking event like the atrocities of Oct 7—the reactions are necessarily going to be reflexive rather than reflective; completely understandably so—but the odds of any thoughtful conversation in that state of shock are basically zero.
Not that this thread or the related ones have been anything close to what I would wish for on HN, in terms of thoughtful conversation, but unfortunately we don't have the ability to make that happen, and not discussing the topic at all seems out of the question as well, so here we are with no good position and no solution.
I understand, could you please check it and report what you find?
But as I understand you, it's left to the moderator's discretion to unflag topics.
Is there a checklist / criteria of judging whether the users can have a "reflective" or "reflexive" political discussion?
Would 9/11 not be covered because it would be too "reflexive"?
Why was this discussion of this "genocide" viewed as not too "reflexive"?
You have to see how it looks very one-sided. It would be nice for political discussion topic allowance details to be explained.
Currently it leaves a lot of assumptions as you point out.
1 reply →
>> We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion.
Mokay, but then can I grumble? I've posted several articles on the subject of the alleged genocide of the Palestinians by Israel's IDF, here on HN I mean, and they all got flagged and not unflagged. I took care to post opinions on both sides of the subject, e.g. this public statement by "over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" warning of potential genocide [1], and this NYT article by historian of genocide Omer Bartov, saying that genocide is not in evidence ("yet") [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228704
Those are articles by scholars who discuss the subject in the most dispassionate manner imaginable (Bartov is particularly a pleasure to read for his level-headed and erudite analysis, although it's obvious he'll find it very hard to admit genocide by his country which he clearly loves) and I'm pretty sure that means they satisfy the "curious conversation" goal you, dang, hold sacred (and it's good that you do).
So what's up? I've been posting this stuff for months and now the subject has exploded in mainstream discourse with the ICJ case, which makes it even more emotionally charged than before. Wouldn't it have been better to get a chance to discuss this before it got to this point?
And while I appreciate there's not one side that HN favours, the ability to flag anything anyone dislikes shapes the discourse in the way vocal minorities prefer.
Sorry for grumbling. I hope you know I respect and admire the work you've done to keep HN on the straight and narrow.
5 replies →
[flagged]
I was specifically asking about Oct 7th coverage and the coverage this event.
While I don't agree with your recount of history, it's off-topic to my question to @dang
In fact, the presence and tone of comments like yours vs the lacking and flagging of pro-Israel gets exactly to the root of my question.