Comment by zahlman
12 days ago
> I thought we hated tone policing here?
The guidelines read clearly to me like tone policing is expected:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You forgot the ones happened to be the reason I responded:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Those points have nothing to do with tone policing, so I don't understand the objection.
Flagging https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46768275 is completely inappropriate (I do not accuse you specifically). It does not in any way violate HN guidelines. The comment it was responding to clearly did, and was correctly flagged and killed as a result.
[flagged]
1 reply →
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Yes, this is exactly what my framing was doing - it is more substantive, positing a starting point for people who earnestly want to solve this problem. How the heck do we save, or at least triage, our country when we've got a hostile federal executive trying to start a civil war (among many other types of overt damage) ?
This conversation is open to people of all political persuasions except Trumpists/fascists (or whatever you want to call yourself). I myself am coming from more of a libertarian / Austrian economics background. I can have some wildly different takes on constructive solutions than someone who is a lifelong Democrat, or a conservative who has been pushed out of the Republican party.
The thing you seem to keep missing is that you were not invited to this conversation - or more accurately you've self-selected out. You could choose to join the conversation at any time, but to do this you need to stop throwing out these disruptive upside-down framings that are basically just promulgating the rogue regime's unapologetic litany of bullshit that's trotted out every time they kill another American.
> This conversation is open to people of all political persuasions except Trumpists/fascists
> The thing you seem to keep missing is that you were not invited to this conversation
I didn't vote for Trump, don't live in the US, wouldn't have voted for Trump, and am not a fascist, so I don't understand the objection. But even if I were any or all of those things, I would not require your permission to post here.
It is worth noting that you are the one in this exchange seeking to establish authoritarian control.
You're supporting the actions of the regime and seemingly echoing a lot of their propaganda. For the purposes of my statement, this makes you a de facto Trumpist. Specifically, the problem is that you're railing directly against the assumptions that were set out to have a productive conversation.
I am not "seeking to establish authoritarian control". I am pointing out that you are being disruptive to good-faith productive conversations. The only reason you seemingly responded to my initial comment was to engage in ideological battle. It's like when someone barges into a discussion about Python, asserting that Python sucks and everyone should use PHP instead. Regardless of whether they have a point or not, it's not particularly germane to conversation for the people who wanted to be talking about Python.