[Chris2048]

Here we go.

> friends who speak against Breitbart

> people who tend to be more armed

> a long history of getting their way through abuse

> white nationalist parties/candidates

Are you talking about white nationalists, or actually about conservatives/Trump/Breitbart, tarring them as violent and abusive along the way?

[chillwaves]

There is considerable overlap between the groups. I find your inability to acknowledge that fact toxic and a hurdle to honest dialogue.

[CmdrSprinkles]

On a completely unrelated note: While I do feel that political discussion is a necessity for any site that claims to be about cutting edge technology and ideas, there are also times you just should not engage. A good rule of thumb is that if a post is immediately antagonistic (and in all fairness, yours kind of was too) or ignores everything in the interest of isolating one phrase that MIGHT be disputable, it isn't.

Which is kind of why I think this entire "detox", much like just about every detox that is about getting rid of the antioxidants or whatever the hell people go to spas for, is a load of bull. The problem isn't the topic, it is how people discuss it. And people discuss plenty of topics in overly emotional and pedantic ways. Often times while extolling their own intelligence in a way that makes you REALLY glad they aren't in the same room as you (HN may be even worse than reddit on that last point).

Respond to posts that can have a discussion. Ignore the ones that can't.

[dang]

> The problem isn't the topic, it is how people discuss it.

Of course. Yet there are obvious correlations to certain topics, and there might be a connection between the "how people discuss it" and the capacity to take a week off from it once in a while.

[CmdrSprinkles]

I thought we weren't supposed to make generalizations here. Gasp, shock, horror!

Also, are you really taking the correlation route in the pseudo-intellectual argument for why there is a ban?

Because if we are just going by correlation: Any time security or privacy is a topic, people stop reading anything and just start speaking from The Heart (just look at the Google Trusted Contacts thread where a significant chunk of the posters have no idea what the app even is...). So clearly that topic should be banned too, right? I mean, there is a clear and obvious correlation between topics about security and privacy and people having emotional discussions. So ban it

In all seriousness: It is your product and you do with it as you see fit. Just understand that people used to love Google and Facebook until they decided (rightly or wrongly) that they were just a commodity and that they were giving their personal information and opinions to an entity that had no problems doing experiments to figure out how to better target them. And with crap like this, it won't take long for people to realize that the company built around knowing what tech to invest in may have an ulterior motive for hosting a board for Cutting Edge Tech (TM) and may be using the data for less than kosher reasons. And crap like this is a good way to trigger a burst of thought from people.

[grzm]

it won't take long for people to realize that the company built around knowing what tech to invest in may have an ulterior motive for hosting a board for Cutting Edge Tech (TM) and may be using the data for less than kosher reasons.

Would you expand on this? What ulterior motives do you have in mind? What do you think HN is using the data for? Most of the data is available through the API, so pretty much anyone can use the data for whatever purpose they'd like.

[DanBC]

> Also, are you really taking the correlation route in the pseudo-intellectual argument for why there is a ban?

Since dang sees all the user flags he probably has a better idea of which discussions get flagged -- which discussions trigger heated arguments.

[Chris2048]

If a human moderator is viewing them, it's not purely correlation.

[Chris2048]

> ignores everything in the interest of isolating one phrase

Why? If it's a valid criticism, why not. Sure, reading into things that take the thread into some tangent is bad; but otherwise, a call for clarification, even if nit-picking, is hard to judge objectively.

> The problem isn't the topic, it is how people discuss it

I agree, but only through objective and explicit guidelines can this be fixed.

> Ignore the ones that can't.

What I dislike more than a topic that is uninteresting to me, is people who also find it uninteresting, and yet comment on the fact. I don't dislike HN posts about apple, because I never read those posts, and it's usually obvious from the title what they are about.

[ryanlol]

This claim is so utterly ridiculous at it's face.

How many white nationalists are there? How many conservatives are there?

[chillwaves]

So you are saying because A is a subset of B, then I cannot claim overlap? Because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of racial identity politics? I guess when the White Nationalists meet in DC to do their Sig Heil in support of Trump (this literally happened) or vandalize churches in DC (this literally happened) we can all pretend that the dialogue attacking minorities is unrelated to white nationalism? That sites like Breitbart who push these racially charged stories can wash their hands while they collect ad revenue from stirring up racial violence?

I disagree.

[Chris2048]

> dialogue attacking minorities is unrelated to white nationalism?

Why lump an explicitly extreme group in with one that isn't so? Would you do the same with Muslims and Muslim extremists?

> sites like Breitbart who push these racially charged stories

A few examples? The daily mail, yes, but what of Breitbart in particular?

[Chris2048]

Prove it.

You label me "toxic" and dishonest, but you want me to just accept your assumptions? My "honest" dialogue is based on verifiable facts, not speculative slander.