- I flag stories only if it seems like the story is abusive, not just off-topic (e.g., overly self-promotional, complete noise, etc). This happens very rarely.
- I don't usually upvote stories. I only do so if I have a very immediate "holy shit this is amazing!" reaction to it.
- I upvote comments frequently, particularly if it's a good, well-argued point done in good style (i.e., more factual than rhetoric). I downvote a lot more than I used to, but usually reserve it for posts I consider abusive. This means ad hominems and egregious displays of fundamentalism/extremism (e.g., "all laws are paid for by big corporate interests", which comes up every. single. time. AirBnb or Uber is mentioned).
That last part is subject to some personal bias naturally, but I do think it's important to reward posts that provide a holistic, nuanced view of issues rather than the fiery rhetoric of people banging on black and white drums. I've noticed a lot more of this sort of drumbeating on HN nowadays.
There are some topics that show up on HN frequently, but the discussion is incredibly poor every single time. I've given up on upvoting/downvoting any such discussions and simply don't read them anymore. This includes everything on sexism in tech.
There are some topics that show up on HN frequently, but the discussion is incredibly poor every single time. I've given up on upvoting/downvoting any such discussions and simply don't read them anymore. This includes everything on sexism in tech.
I don't blame you, but I find it especially sad, because sexism in tech is one area that actually needs more meaningful nuanced discussion. Not to be too elitist, but if we can't have this conversation, who can?
Unfortunately, a large subset of the people who wish to have the conversation, consider lesswrong.com to be sexist and that being "logical" and "rational" are part of the problem. I don't believe it is a conversation that can actually be productive, at all.
Those sort of discussions are probably most effective when had in "meatspace" (I dislike that term, but I dislike the term "real world" even more). No 'throwaways', fewer 'throw away opinions', no voting systems or flagging, greater communication bandwidth (access to body language and tone reduces misunderstandings), etc.
Trying to get HN to productively discuss topics like this is like trying to get 4chan to "count to 10". The site just really isn't set up to facilitate it.
Why would HN be a particularly good venue for that conversation? There are a lot of smart people here, but a lot of the factors that make HN a good place for technical discussions make it a horrible place for softer discussions like those about sexism.
I am still rather surprised at the number of HN folks that believe we can somehow detach the socio-political / cultural / gender aspects of society from the technological choices.
The notion that HN should only focus on the “technology” establishes a rather broken model, where no such polemic or axis exists.
Are there not potentially greater entrepreneurial opportunities for a collective that has a holistic view of the culture?
Sure, whenever there's a massive imbalance between the genders, it's going to be less productive than when there's a balance. It also doesn't help much if the sexism discussion occurs among a group of 95% females - which is typically what happens.
It's interesting that none of the smart hackers here have 'innovated' an open discussion forum yet. Everyone knows of the problems with moderation and hellbanning, everyone knows that this forum isn't a democracy and yet, here we all are.
Why do you assume that democracy is the right model for discussion? Even with the problems of moderation and hellbanning, the system here is better than something purely open.
I've seen pure open discussions, and I don't want to have anything to do with them.
> I've given up on upvoting/downvoting any such discussions and simply don't read them anymore. This includes everything on sexism in tech.
You know, I've noticed a lot of the 'superstar commenters' on HN have polar opposite views from each other on a lot of these touchy issues. So, it's sad to see that what ensues out of smart people disagreeing is a plain refusal to talk about these very things.
Why does it have to be this way? Why are some of the most respected and the smartest commenters on this site unwilling to have an intellectually honest debate?
Is it because of time? I've noticed that if I just sound the first thought in my mind, it's likely to come out as being rude ("wow, this sucks", "this is the 100th time I'm seeing this", "why did this person make this obvious mistake?"). It takes effort and time to structure these first thoughts as positive criticisms. Presumably, the smart folks here don't have a lot of time, so maybe it's just that they end up sounding terse and rude only because they don't have the time to reword things to sound more polite and supportive?
> Why are some of the most respected and the smartest commenters on this site unwilling to have an intellectually honest debate?
Unwilling? No, HN is more than willing to have a good debate. The issue is that with some particular topics, HN is unable.
HN is not a perfect platform for intelligent discussion. It is unable to handle certain types discussions and the only effective mechanism it has to keep those discussions from consuming the rest of the site is to crudely cull them.
Humbly, I suggest that if HN's inability to discuss some things surprises you, then your opinion of HN is too high. It is imperfect, very imperfect.
> The issue is that with some particular topics, HN is unable.
Agreed, it's actually just impossible to have a non-polarized discussion if people identify too strongly with one of the poles. This isn't unique to HN, we essentially live in a bipolar society. Even if you present a middle ground, someone identifying with either pole will assume you are identifying with the opposite pole, because they see that part of the world in black and white.
Nevertheless, these discussions are good for clarifying your understanding of the world, just try not to expect much in the way of respect, appreciation, agreement, or understanding.
Religion, politics, professional sexism, all these are topics that infringe on people's identities, causing a strong gut reaction that leads to terrible discussions. Even programming languages can end up in a similar category, if you have too many people that identify as a "C++ programmer" or a "Pythonista", or a "Lisper", which leads to the oft-seen programming language flame war.
> Nevertheless, these discussions are good for clarifying your understanding of the world, just try not to expect much in the way of respect, appreciation, agreement, or understanding.
That's a good point; an effective compromise may be to allow heavily flagged discussions to continue after being pushed off the front page, instead of [dead]'ing them (which halts conversation abruptly.) This is actually what happens currently most of the time (as far as I have seen anyway) and I don't think it is particularly bad. The people who are already involved in a discussion can continue it, but more people are not drawn into it as the poisonous discussion doesn't stay visible on the front page.
That's an interesting philosophy. I guess it's like that, with the exception that eventually I'll withdraw from a persistently hostile conversation because I know my own limits and I want to avoid getting destructively angry. Similarly, I'm learning to avoid saying precisely what I think on certain topics around certain people, even if I know that it's a balanced position, because dealing with the aftermath isn't worth it. But yes, it's nice hanging out with friends who don't get all worked up just because I happen to have an opinion that they don't share.
Why are some of the most respected and the smartest commenters on this site unwilling to have an intellectually honest debate?
Because after the tenth time it's discussed and turns into a verbal food fight, many people intuitively realize that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- I don't usually upvote stories. I only do so if I have a very immediate "holy shit this is amazing!" reaction to it.
- I upvote comments frequently, particularly if it's a good, well-argued point done in good style (i.e., more factual than rhetoric). I downvote a lot more than I used to, but usually reserve it for posts I consider abusive. This means ad hominems and egregious displays of fundamentalism/extremism (e.g., "all laws are paid for by big corporate interests", which comes up every. single. time. AirBnb or Uber is mentioned).
That last part is subject to some personal bias naturally, but I do think it's important to reward posts that provide a holistic, nuanced view of issues rather than the fiery rhetoric of people banging on black and white drums. I've noticed a lot more of this sort of drumbeating on HN nowadays.
There are some topics that show up on HN frequently, but the discussion is incredibly poor every single time. I've given up on upvoting/downvoting any such discussions and simply don't read them anymore. This includes everything on sexism in tech.