[thealfreds]

A lot of this argument boils down to people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site because it will be self regulated. I think those discussions are healthy for a community to have and would prefer people offer an opinion of why such content is viable for the space vs deriding conversation.

Also I agree and I enjoy seeing politics discussed. You are conflating my defending of someones discussion around the structure with the site / features or focus of the the sites content with me defending their argument. Two different things here.

[Fnoord]

> A lot of this argument boils down to people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site because it will be self regulated. I think those discussions are healthy for a community to have and would prefer people offer an opinion of why such content is viable for the space vs deriding conversation.

You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable. Why are these solutions I offered perfectly valid for someone who's not into quantum mechanics or JavaScript or Android or Windows, yet they somehow don't work for someone who's not into politics (however vague that definition might be)?

As for my argument being that people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site: yes, they are allowed, just not in a thread which is about something else. This thread is about "The Paradise Papers: How Ridiculously Easy It Is for the Rich to Avoid Taxes" not about whether politics are allowed to be discussed on HN (which is itself a political argument by proponents of political apathy). Are you a proponent of moderation complaints ("downvoting", a form of argumentum ad misericordiam) in threads? No? Then why would you be a proponent of people who complain they find an article or bunch of articles irrelevant or offtopic?

I'm all for a meta forum where people can rant their ass off about how X or Y is ontopic on the website. A website I visit regularly (Tweakers.net) has such a subforum where people can submit things like spelling mistakes or complain about moderation. Let the complainers together enjoy their cesspit of complaints, being directed to it, while such complaints in the threads themselves are downvoted to offtopic (0) or troll (-1). GLHF wasting your time on that, having people vent their frustration already helps them with their problem.

[thealfreds]

> You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable.

Your solution was that I write a script to blacklist certain words? Is that really a viable solution vs a product implementation?

> Don't make it appear that your apathy regarding politics should be the status quo.

And nowhere in this discussion was I against the discussion of politics just that this immediate and visceral reaction to wanting to discuss a topic is my issue here.

If we had a meta forum as mentioned above I would love for discussions like this to be moved in that direction but we are where we are because the lack of structure.

[Fnoord]

> > You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable. > Your solution was that I write a script to blacklist certain words?

Yes, that was one of my solutions. Only one human being has to write such a simple script, and share it for the rest of the world. The other solutions I provided require manual labour. It could also easily be implemented in the apps which use the API (f.e. I use Yarn).

> And nowhere in this discussion was I against the discussion of politics just that this immediate and visceral reaction to wanting to discuss a topic is my issue here.

Because it is offtopic, just like rants about quantum mechanics would easily be or become offtopic in a thread about Android security. We wouldn't accept that; why would be find rants about politics being on the website acceptable? The intolerance fundamentally starts when people go offtopic complaining about the substance of the topic which is disrespectful to those who do care about the topic. It does not need to be this way, if you just moved on, filtered, upvoted, read, and participated in what you find interesting. That's a way to positively reinforce instead of negatively.

> If we had a meta forum as mentioned above I would love for discussions like this to be moved in that direction but we are where we are because the lack of structure.

So the lack of that justifies graffiti in random threads until your demands are met?

[thealfreds]

> So the lack of that justifies graffiti in random threads until your demands are Let?

Nope but it is the inevitable outcome as we see here.

[Fnoord]

That doesn't justify anything except replies like this one [1]. This entire discussion is now hidden, as it should be.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15724284

[thealfreds]

Actually thinking back on it and going over your responses I'll admit I'm wrong. You appear to have many many more years dedicated to online forums than me and very most likely understand how to sustain a community better. With mentioning several communities I've never heard of.

I'll still stand my ground that the first reply that I replied to was a shit comment only wanting to deflect conversation. If it followed what you said here then the appropriate response is to ignore it and report.