> the question "which ones specifically are ok?" is generally answered by: the ones that have some intellectual interest that isn't just partisan, plus significant-enough new information so that the discussion doesn't automatically turn completely repetitive
But, as far as I can tell, this is what we're seeing. And also but, as you seem to imply, how can you tell? Honestly I don't have a good answer nor do I expect you to. I like to use HN as an escape from all that even though I'm completely guilty of engaging in the same politically driven nonsense I find so appalling and tiresome.
Maybe the only answer is that we have to constantly remind ourselves to act and respond in good faith, with honesty.
You @brodouevencode made at least 10 political posts yourself in the last few weeks.
If we're trying to decide what political posts should be allowed here, may I suggest you start your own political posts? What differentiates them from the ones you don't like?
You might spend a little extra time with those that have been flagged, because apparently a number of your own posts have not been warmly welcomed by this community.
That penalises legitimately contentious topics and promotes status quoism, which are two of HN's greatest failings.
Moderation (mostly by HN members) and admonishments (by mods) are HN's tools for promoting civil discourse even on difficult topics. They're ... limited tools, but it's what we've got.
We prefer not to shut down ongoing conversations. Also, the usual case is that you get some subthreads which are fine alongside others which are downward spirals. Killing the former in order to kill the latter feels like...overkill.
Thanks @dang
> the question "which ones specifically are ok?" is generally answered by: the ones that have some intellectual interest that isn't just partisan, plus significant-enough new information so that the discussion doesn't automatically turn completely repetitive
But, as far as I can tell, this is what we're seeing. And also but, as you seem to imply, how can you tell? Honestly I don't have a good answer nor do I expect you to. I like to use HN as an escape from all that even though I'm completely guilty of engaging in the same politically driven nonsense I find so appalling and tiresome.
Maybe the only answer is that we have to constantly remind ourselves to act and respond in good faith, with honesty.
You @brodouevencode made at least 10 political posts yourself in the last few weeks.
If we're trying to decide what political posts should be allowed here, may I suggest you start your own political posts? What differentiates them from the ones you don't like?
You might spend a little extra time with those that have been flagged, because apparently a number of your own posts have not been warmly welcomed by this community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42217185
How about just algorithmically killing a post if a suitably high percentage of comments are getting killed?
That penalises legitimately contentious topics and promotes status quoism, which are two of HN's greatest failings.
Moderation (mostly by HN members) and admonishments (by mods) are HN's tools for promoting civil discourse even on difficult topics. They're ... limited tools, but it's what we've got.
We prefer not to shut down ongoing conversations. Also, the usual case is that you get some subthreads which are fine alongside others which are downward spirals. Killing the former in order to kill the latter feels like...overkill.