> Well, this post is surely going to get removed because of flaming in comments
This is one prediction of many possible outcomes.
Independent of the probability of a negative downstream outcome:
1. It is preferable to correct the unwelcome behavior itself, not the acceptable events simply preceding it (that are non-causal). For example, we denounce when a bully punches a kid, not that the kid stood his ground.*
2. We don't want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy in the form of self-censorship.
* I'm not dogmatic on this. There are interesting situations with blurry lines. For example, consider defensive driving, where it is rational to anticipate risky behavior from other drivers and proactively guard against it, rather than waiting for an accident to happen.
It’s the most important thing going on in the world. And geeks shouldn’t be thought of as people who will sit and think how cool the death machine AI that Israel has developed which chooses how and when 30K children die… geeks make this tech, profitise from it, and lurk about HN and when it comes to facing the reality of their creations they want to close the conversation down, flag comments, and evade the hurty real world reality of it. Sad. And pathetic. I’m not saying you are personally.
> They tend to remove posts causing flame in comments
It can be fun to consider the precise and comprehensive truth value of such statements (or, the very nature of "reality" for extra fun) using strict, set theory based non-binary logic.
It can also be not fun. Or sometimes even dangerous.
Civilized conversation is limited by the emotional stability of those having it.
People have it so easy now they've grown up and spent their entire lives in total comfort and without even the slightest hint of adversarial interaction. So when they encounter it, they overreact and panic at the slightest bit of scrutiny rather than behave like reasonable adults.
HN exists for us to comment on articles. The majority of comments are from folks who didn't even read the article (and that's fine).
Turning off comments makes as much sense as just posting the heading and no link or attribution.
Well, this post is surely going to get removed because of flaming in comments, so, which is better, post with no comments, or no post at all?
> Well, this post is surely going to get removed because of flaming in comments
This is one prediction of many possible outcomes.
Independent of the probability of a negative downstream outcome:
1. It is preferable to correct the unwelcome behavior itself, not the acceptable events simply preceding it (that are non-causal). For example, we denounce when a bully punches a kid, not that the kid stood his ground.*
2. We don't want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy in the form of self-censorship.
* I'm not dogmatic on this. There are interesting situations with blurry lines. For example, consider defensive driving, where it is rational to anticipate risky behavior from other drivers and proactively guard against it, rather than waiting for an accident to happen.
Having civil conversation and banning aggressively those who can't be adults?
> so, which is better, post with no comments, or no post at all?
The false choice dilemma is dead. Long live the false choice dilemma!
The goal of that being?
[flagged]
They tend to remove posts causing flame in comments
It’s the most important thing going on in the world. And geeks shouldn’t be thought of as people who will sit and think how cool the death machine AI that Israel has developed which chooses how and when 30K children die… geeks make this tech, profitise from it, and lurk about HN and when it comes to facing the reality of their creations they want to close the conversation down, flag comments, and evade the hurty real world reality of it. Sad. And pathetic. I’m not saying you are personally.
> They tend to remove posts causing flame in comments
It can be fun to consider the precise and comprehensive truth value of such statements (or, the very nature of "reality" for extra fun) using strict, set theory based non-binary logic.
It can also be not fun. Or sometimes even dangerous.
It's more about being able to have a civilized conversation in some topics.
Civilized conversation is limited by the emotional stability of those having it.
People have it so easy now they've grown up and spent their entire lives in total comfort and without even the slightest hint of adversarial interaction. So when they encounter it, they overreact and panic at the slightest bit of scrutiny rather than behave like reasonable adults.
Plenty of us are capable of having civilized conversation on these topics.
If you can't, you should be banned. The problem will work itself out over time.
2 replies →