Comment by thenaturalist
3 months ago
This reads like a sleek way to weasel oneself out of responsibility.
So what you're effectively implying is that the court of public (in Israel instances very clearly biased) opinion rules the site?
So guidelines for thee (Israel supporters) but not for me (Israel haters and Antisemites).
A famous poem from Martin Niemöller, who actually lived through facism comes to mind:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
It can be frustrating, and I'd engaged for years on HN with the assumption that The Mods were Biased Against My Point of View. This itself is a common trope: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...> and <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>.
I've changed that opinion, both by observing their behaviour (you can follow both your own, and any users' threads, on HN, including mods, which I review fairly frequently), and overall site characteristics (see: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...> and <https://toot.cat/deck/tags/HackerNewsAnalytics> and related).
I do have some remaining concerns that HN's policies can amount to tone-policing, and that issues which are themselves long-standing or recurring, regardless of other merits, tend to trip across the guidelines to a greater extent, which imposes a natural bias against them.
That said, if you do want to discuss a volatile, persistent, or repetitive issue, you'll find far greater success if you do so with HN's principles and guidelines in mind. It might possibly also make you a more efficient advocate and debater.