Hacker News Reader

Comment by monoideism | Hacker News Reader

Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his comment really well, and using abusive language only diminishes your response.

If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults).

If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments.

PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.

View on HN

I agree that the tone of replies matter, but flagging comments spreading misinformation seems like a positive thing.

It's not a different belief, it was a flat out lie and spreading of misinformation, their own source doesn't even back them up. Stop pushing a narrative that misinformation should be "equally considered" or is "just another point of view".

This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence.

I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them.

And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.

If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.

Question?

Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting.

Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]?

Nope

1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.

I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend the opinion of a throwaway account posting inaccurate information its own cited source refutes. These alternative viewpoints need to have some level of credibility to them, we should not defend every rando's opinion blindly.

I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself.

How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy".

1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...

> I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend

Those are all very different words. And you do the same below when you mix up "tolerate" and "legitimize". Are you trying to confuse the debate? To be clear, I'm solely arguing for tolerate and not censor, not any of the other things. And wow, looking at that comment that was flagged, I can't comprehend how you would believe it's so repugnant that it's worthy of censoring and suppression.

> Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist

He's the target of unfortunate conspiracy theories, but I want to get this straight: you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist? Do you also not think the Koch brothers are libertarian propagandists? Of course, they all are!

But yeah, I strongly disagree. I think censoring people who disagree, combined with the power and income inequality that was created by the plutocrats, will together kill our country. I don't want to give away my identity since I'm aware there are lots of people who would try to get me fired for disagreeing with them, but I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.

>Those are all very different words.

Not really. You are arguing that misinformation needs to have a place on this platform, and have a chance to be heard. Again an outright misinformed post, that couldn't even back itself up, needs to be here. You are defending and legitimizing it with this point of view. Much evil has been done in the world because people "tolerated" things and just let injustice slide.

>you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist

Yes, but practically everyone is a propagandist, and has bias. Though he has more sway because money speaks.

>I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.

Where have you been for the last 250 years? The US was founded on genocide and slavery. Ethnic conflict has been here forever.

"misinformation" is the rallying cry of those who wish to suppress speech, even if that speech is patently false. Enough with the Gestapo tactics.

Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.

>Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.

That's exactly what the person replying did.

I'm sure you you would agree that there are limits. Or what would you say if someone here started to create throwaway accounts spreading persinal lies about you?

Would you still argue that it's enough to just correct those lies? What about if the person isn't just a single person but a group.

Also, I hope you do realise the irony of arguing by calling someone's opinion gestapo tactics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com