Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssnistfajen | Hacker News Reader

Or perhaps we don't need HN exceptionalism? Intelligence isn't translated universally onto all subject matters. Just because someone is good at writing code doesn't make them well-suited to understand any non-programming topics to have a well-informed or rational discussion about it. There's no reason why HN should have a higher quality discussion on these subjects than some generic subreddit or FB comment sections. Of course I wish the discussion quality could be higher, but I understand why it isn't.

View on HN

> Or perhaps we don't need HN exceptionalism?

It's not exceptionalism to lament the downfall of the tradition of carefully cultivated discourse. I still remember when this community used to be different, and this site was the one I went to first.

> There's no reason why HN should have a higher quality discussion than some generic subreddit or FB comment sections.

Yes, there is. HN uses to have a higher quality discussion because it was carefully moderated both by the community itself and the moderators. Sadly, it seems that all communities deteriorate eventually.

Don't read political threads either. One should have come to the conclusion long ago that no platform is "enlightened enough" to shy away from the basic human instincts of "us vs them."

Carefully cultivated discourse is still abundant on HN, which is why I read this site regularly. They just aren't usually found under threads that touch non-strictly tech things like geopolitics, history, natural sciences, or lifestyle. Although I do agree the moderation needs to be more responsive in some of these situations, I have made peace with the fact that HN doesn't have 100% high quality discussion.

I wonder if in 100 years from now society will make fun of "carefully cultivated discourse" the way we make fun of the aristocrats who drink tea with their pinky out to show how refined they were.

What HN actually does is police the tone.

I've seen some pretty heinous opinions expressed on HN, but because they're expressed with the correct tone, the ones responding to them are the ones that get moderated.

---

It's just not a solvable problem. No matter what dang, et al, do, they're creating a place they themselves WANT, and most people conform or skirt just within the edges.

But you can always tell when you're interacting with someone not worth interacting with, because they'll skirt the tone bounardaries while still being just as much of an argumentative jackass as they would on reddit.

---

This imagined superiority of discourse is just pompous arrogance on the part of a few people who actually think what dang, et al, have set out to do is solvable. If they solve it, they've solved humans. The only thing they can do is change their view over time on what is acceptable, and that's really what you're seeing. Them changing as humans over years.

The culture and rule of “curious conversation” should remain high, and that at least counteracts “lol becuase I say so” comments or old rehashes. Higher forms of discussion is what makes this place better. Curious conversation also makes way for “greyscale” discussion, where there is room to critique your own views and that of another, as I find the black-and-white thinking in discussion an example of unthoughtful or unhelpful discussion.

This. Also, it applies to Snowden, who at his best is a glorified Sharepoint admin.

He has no special insight into any other aspect of existence.

Who had the courage to speak up about our governments vast overreach and illegal domestic surveillance program. His exceptional courage is why we might pay special attention to his opinion, even when we disagree with it or suspect it's influenced by who has granted him asylum.

> Intelligence isn't translated universally onto all subject matters

It is though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com