61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How is that a shallow dismissal? Pointing out a pattern is a shallow dismissal? A dismissal of what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why this comment was singled out in particular, maybe it was edited. But I do think this kind of low value and lazy opionionating should be discouraged.
> low value There's a pretty decent size thread of interesting discussion beneath it, demonstrating that it is of value. > I don't understand why this comment was singled out I don't moderate this site, but if I did I might be tempted to use a script to scrape for keywords and phrases that sound like violations of the guidelines and issue replies at a key press or automatically. And that's a good way to do it, except…
"Decent size" does not indicate value on HN. We want quality, not quantity. The responses that the root comment generated were mostly either generic (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28995221) or outright flamewar crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look inwards in your community then, and lay down some standards.
Right back at you? Mainstream social media is a cesspool, see Twitter & Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right back at you? Mainstream social media is a cesspool, see Twitter & Reddit.
I don't use either - and that's not relevant either - the topic was conservatives unable to have a good online space to themselves because of bigots. :)
You said "my community", do you think all people using alternative platforms share the same views as each other, much less have any control over each other?
No, it's just like Reddit or Twitter where you can find people saying the worse possible shit about anything.
The thing is there's also just as many good people on those alt communities who just want a place to discuss their beliefs.
Just because the Taliban is on Twitter doesn't mean @timmy is a terrorist because they share the site, same goes for Gab and others.
Personally, I believe if you aren't making threats or anything else illegal then you should be free to say whatever you want, otherwise things get murky on who decides what's "hate" or "misinformation". We've already seen those excuses abused greatly.
A user configured client side filter would suffice without any censorship needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the donald was on reddit there was some limits on what they could do. When they got banned they moved to their own domain and there was no limit whatever.
> there was no limit whatever. There were certainly limits on speech that did not fall in line with t_d's world view. As there are in all conservative venues aside from r/tuesday AFAIK. If anyone is aware of somewhere that is conservative, and is interested in honest debate, I am interested.
By definition, conservatives want to conserve the status quo, someone who is a conservative wouldn’t rock the boat as much as Trump did.
If you want to hear somebody arguing the conservative case, try the early podcasts with Joe Rogan.
Nice demonstration of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." This is the naive weakness exploited by every strain of authoritarianism, the i…
What in fact leads to that, is states declaring certain views they oppose as "intolerant", and starting being intolerant to these views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that paradox square with the transition of intolerant societies into tolerant ones? Where intolerant attitudes were not only tolerated, but the norm? If this was really a paradox, such a transition should be impossible. But since such transitions took place, the same forces that enabled them can also prevent a society from becoming intolerant. Of course in practice this paradox is only ever invoked by those…
Humans have created a rather extensive historical record of seeking freedom from oppression in all forms, all of which involves intolerance. I.e., a large majority of humans want a tolerant environment Most often, they do NOT actually manage to transform their intolerant society from within, but leave to find tolerance elsewhere. This is the most basic history of the worlds largest superpower - it's European inhabita…
So what exactly was this "intolerance" that the UK tried to extend to the US? Does it still exist in the UK? What about in Canada, that waged no war for independence? What about the countries of the former Soviet union? Were they fighting against "intolerance" in WWII, and were beacons of tolerance after their victory? Heck, was the US? If I recall correctly, at the end of WWII, the US still had segregation and a whites-only immigration policy, which would not change until the Hart-Celler act 20 years later. Is that your idea of a tolerant society?
As long as you keep "tolerance" sufficiently vague, you can spin any tale you like.