← Back to context

Comment by coleworld45

16 hours ago

I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone.

I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone.

Definitely a double standard baked in

Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more?

(This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)

  • Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism.

    "Dogwhistle

    The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This reinforces harmful stereotypes and can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and division."

    • I don't know that I've ever seen a reasonable accusation of 'dogwhistling' on HN. They always just make the accuser seem paranoid or evasive.

      1 reply →

    • I would think/hope that both of those comments would be flagged with even a small amount of moderation set.

      Avoiding that kind of comment is exactly what we are trying to do, actually.

      3 replies →

    • Yep, I agree -- it is a double standard... but......

      Very sensitive topic. We'll think hard on how to handle things like that.

    • > Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part…

      I mean, in my opinion, Trump empirically sucks. Opinion polling backs me up! Should the model consider that more people consider one or the other to suck? Or should it ignore factual information to spare feelings? Which approach is more respectful to fellow commenters and the website owner?

      (See also: X considering "cisgender" a slur. There's no shared reality on a lot of these things; trying to construct one gets deeply difficult.)

      6 replies →