21–30 of 992 posts
And of course this gets flagged. HN is very strange sometimes, sometimes even worse than the loathed reddit mods (or maybe it's just the overly-american audiance here). Maybe if this gets posted a Github gist with the changes alone it won't get removed?
And of course this gets flagged. HN is very strange sometimes, sometimes even worse than the loathed reddit mods (or maybe it's just the overly-american audiance here). Maybe if this gets posted a Github gist with the changes alone it won't get removed?
Now it is the realm of HN
That's not to say I have a better way forward, but I don't think it is good to shutdown difficult conversations to appease the most offended -- that is arguably the group that should have least sway over discussion
But by empowering 'flaggers' and 'downvoters' we give them the most control...
And of course this gets flagged. HN is very strange sometimes, sometimes even worse than the loathed reddit mods (or maybe it's just the overly-american audiance here). Maybe if this gets posted a Github gist with the changes alone it won't get removed?
Suppression of opinion was the realm of dictatorship et al Now it is the realm of HN That's not to say I have a better way forward, but I don't think it is good to shutdown difficult conversations to appease the most offended -- that is arguably the group that should have least sway over discussion But by empowering 'flaggers' and 'downvoters' we give them the most control...
Censoring old children's books. Yikes. This is frightening in more ways than one. Besides the obvious censorship, and rewriting the past being a bad thing. I can't wait to see what they do to "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451" and "1984". It'll be ironic and sad if they burn the old unedited Roald Dahl books. But also have we reached cultural stagnation, that old media still out competes new ones by such orders of m…
Where is the next Dahl? Why is there no modern Beatrix Potter? Kids still love those stories and style of writing, which is less trite than most of the modern children's books.
It does feel like stagnation, with lots of content being churned out but none of it with great staying power. Instead the old stuff is regurgitated endlessly with less and less of it's original soul.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Do you dispute that the story is true?
As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we…
If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining.
People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.
Censoring old children's books. Yikes. This is frightening in more ways than one. Besides the obvious censorship, and rewriting the past being a bad thing. I can't wait to see what they do to "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451" and "1984". It'll be ironic and sad if they burn the old unedited Roald Dahl books. But also have we reached cultural stagnation, that old media still out competes new ones by such orders of m…
> But also have we reached cultural stagnation, that old media still out competes new ones by such orders of magnitude Where is the next Dahl? Why is there no modern Beatrix Potter? Kids still love those stories and style of writing, which is less trite than most of the modern children's books. It does feel like stagnation, with lots of content being churned out but none of it with great staying power. Instead the ol…
Probably crowded out of the market by the existing Dahl and Beatrix Potter books, which are plentiful and constantly in print.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we…
Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks? If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining. People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.
Or the plot of Esio Trot which is a guy tricking his downstairs neighbor into falling in love with him by swapping out her pet every few weeks with a larger one?
Or the whole plot of George’s Marvelous Medicine which is a boy who mixes up a potion with everything he can find in his house, and feeds it to his nasty grandmother?
He’s got a whole lot of crazy stuff, and I can only speak of things I’ve read to my kids recently.
[flagged]
The current article, I would say, easily clears the bar for interestingness on HN, despite its culture war aspect. Interestingness is the thing we care about here (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
(Also, the submitter did a fine job of rewriting the title to be less baity, as the site guidelines request: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Thanks GavCo!)
It's true that https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=telegraph.co.uk contains a lot of ideological battle articles that probably fall below the 'interesting' line. For that reason, that domain has a penalty on it—a medium-weight penalty that we put on every site in this category, regardless of which ideology they support.
However, it does look like there have been other good articles from this domain. For example:
Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33862385 - Dec 2022 (128 comments)
So I'd say this domain is a good example of the kind that we'd penalize but not ban, and try to turn off the penalty when the occasionally genuinely interesting article does show up.
[flagged]
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definition...