Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhkjhu23123123 | Hacker News Reader

Group of politicians fighting other politicians reported by website aligned with a third batch of politicians.

Being critiqued without much rigour by the otherwise logical community here.

It's like reading a netmums forum debating p2p file sharing architecture based on a story about pornography they heard.

That's possible, because it's not a topic the majority of this community has detailed knowledge or personal experience of. Still, it would be better to provide substantive correction than to post a shallow dismissal, which the site guidelines ask you not to do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Shallow article, shallow dismissal.

The forum you moderate has been teetering towards nationalist "othering" of China ever since the Google thing was floated. 90% of the people hurling invective clearly know nothing about the country.

It's not "boo China" vs "yay China", it's "boo China" vs "try to understand China".

You're talking about macro social/political trends. Obviously HN can't be immune from those. Perhaps you've noticed us trying to moderate it—in the literal sense of that word—as best we can. That's hard to do and we have few resources to do it with. So if you care about HN, could you please avoid harming it further by kicking at a situation that's fragile and getting worse? Instead, assuming you know more, you could contribute some of what you know. If you'd do that in a non-inflammatory way, it could be helpful. Calling names just strengthens the ignorance you're complaining about, which makes you partly responsible for it. (Not to pick on you personally; we all do this.)

Even if you don't care, we need you to follow the site guidelines if you want to keep commenting here. They say: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) This comment and others haven't been meeting that bar, so please do better.

I would not call this article shallow. It's full of details. Better questions to raise would be whether it has been corroborated (as pftburger did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18227679), and what relevant information it may omit. It also seems legit to wonder why so many such articles have been appearing lately, though because there isn't much evidence one can point to, there probably isn't a non-flamey discussion to be had there.

Even when an article is shallow, a shallow dismissal still breaks the guidelines. Commenters owe better not to the article, but to the community they're participating in.

p.s. You've mischaracterized my line about booyay by misquoting it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18214633). Those phrases are not objective descriptions—they're how each side feels to the opposite side (hence the 'fuck you' bit), which explains why they react so badly to each other.

Thanks for the response.

If I misremembered your exact quote, please consider it a charitable misquote.

Appreciated!

Yeah your right, sorry Dang. As you mention in the other comment, pftburger's response was the right way to go about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com