[porpoisely]

I disagree. Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people.

It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" and yet the "toxic" environment they created led to substantial advancements.

And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions - though often times more contentious and off topic. And though I agree that it can make people angry, polarized and amp up the stakes, those aren't necessarily bad things. Most of the time, it is actually a good thing and a basis for competition.

Finally, I'd say HN has a different culture, not necessarily better. Also, what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming and virtue signaling. And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it.

I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change".

[titzer]

> It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic"

To be clear, there is a difference between toxic people and toxic behaviors. The former, I think, doesn't exist. There are people who often engage in toxic behavior, and those who do rarely. Pointing out toxic behavior is the first step to correcting it. And correcting it is in fact the goal of community guidelines, in order to establish a more inclusive culture.

> Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people.

Let's be clear about what "toxic" means, and not let it degenerate to "loud and I don't like it." Toxic means that it actively damages open discussion, drives people away, and kills off conversations. It is the same sense as a toxic substance; kills.

> And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions

Ok this is manifestly untrue. Please read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). Poisoning the well is a form of preemptive insult to discourage opponents from taking a position by making it seem toxic. The fallacy is aptly named.

> what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming

Yep! I am happy to shame toxic behavior when it is clear.

> and virtue signaling

Maybe. I'd be happy to do it anonymously if you would prefer.

> And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it.

This is the very definition of suppressing conversation: sending people away who don't feel like putting up with insults. It's counterproductive and unnecessary.

> I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change".

This isn't some he-said she-said situation. I am pointing out direct unprovoked insults designed to stifle discussion and establish a particular point of view. As I have made it abundantly clear, I find this completely unnecessary and I pointed it out because I really think we can stop doing this if we're just consistent about it. We'll have better discussions with more diverse viewpoints, not just hotheads shouting at each other.

[porpoisely]

When we are talking about toxic, I think we all understood it meant behavior. And the point of community guidelines isn't to make it the community more inclusive, it's actually to make it more exclusive. Limiting speech and thoughts are exclusive behaviors, not inclusive ones. But I'm all for HN or any other platform having guidelines.

I studied philosophy in college so I don't need an explanation of what poisoning the well is. "Poisoning the well" itself is poisoning the well and I don't want to get into the intricacies of ad hominems and logical fallacies. Many times, people misunderstand logical fallacies and use logical fallacies themselves to stifle debate.

Also, Linus wasn't having an argument or a debate. He was giving his opinion. He is allowed to say someone's argument is stupid : "how stupid your argument is.". He didn't call people stupid, he called the argument stupid.

Finally, ad hominems may or may not stifle discussion from the passionless or people who don't care about the topic, but it never stifles discussion from passionate people or people who care about a topic. Every major debate - going back to religious debates or debates about science or debates about slavery or debates about civil rights or anything else was "passionate". Can you imagine these debates being shut down because that's not what "polite company discusses"?

And why would it matter whether you virtue signal anonymously or not? You are already anonymous as HN is thankfully an anonymous forum. One thing HN is fairly good about ( as far as I know ) is anonymity.

I don't believe in ad hominems or attacking people. But if people want to use harsh language to express ideas they are passionate about, I say go for it. The same goes for you. You seem passionate about the subject and I support your right to express it in whatever manner you choose. What I find ironic is that under the aegis of "inclusivity and encouraging discussion", you are advocating for exclusion and stifling Linux Torvalds' speech. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly, you can see that you are doing precisely what you claim Torvalds is doing - stifling speech ( or at least advocating for it ).

[titzer]

Well, we are going to disagree about this, so I won't drag this on forever. However I would like to be clear about a couple things.

> And the point of community guidelines isn't to make it the community more inclusive, it's actually to make it more exclusive.

Again, mixing up behaviors and people. The whole point of community guidelines is to serve the community--to include and support a wide range of people, not a wide range behaviors. Certain behaviors just flat out drive people away--that is the very definition of exclusiveness. Being "inclusive" of these toxic behaviors leads to an exclusive culture. The worst, most exclusive cultures are the ones without guidelines, full of bad behavior. Inclusiveness requires curation of behavioral guidelines. Let's not invert the sense of words when convenient for argumentation (e.g. calling community guidelines and behavioral standards "exclusiveness" because they discourage one type of bad behavior but encourage hundreds of other good ones).

> What I find ironic is that under the aegis of "inclusivity and encouraging discussion", you are advocating for exclusion and stifling Linux Torvalds' speech.

This seems to be the crux of the issue. First, it's an exaggeration to say that advocating against using insults and inflammatory language is "stifling" (see above). I actually want Linus to speak his mind--just do so without the anger channel. It's really fucking annoying to some people. Even calling ideas stupid is really fucking annoying to the people who have those ideas. But the worst part is, for every Linus there is, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of people who are going to read something like that and just silently leave. That's a sign of a bad culture. That's toxic right there. And those people who leave are the meek ones who normally wouldn't speak up because they don't want to get the firehose and spotlight pointed right at them. They don't want their ideas called stupid or idiotic or be told they aren't dealing with reality. Those kind of people that actually can be very bright and have very different (and valuable!) perspectives. The kind of people who just disappear and you never notice. And I've met plenty of people like this--if you ever people-managed, you find out hey, this or that person is leaving, and it's because they actually really didn't like being around this group. It's a loss. Most people just don't notice, but their community just got a little worse each time that happens. So you gotta find soft ways to stop it.

At any rate. Generally your comments can be construed as a defense of people that really don't need any defense. That makes it even worse when the community explicitly stands up and defends loud, obnoxious, unnecessary behavior and lionizes these "hotheads". (To be clear, I am not suggesting you are explicitly doing that, it just has that ring to it). Trust me, hotheads need no defense. They need no coddling or encouragement to keep mouthing off. Many hotheads will stick around and annihilate a community, perhaps unconsciously, because it works. They win. So don't defend them. Defending bad behavior is a death spiral, as it sends exactly the wrong message about inclusion, and that's double bad.

[porpoisely]

It's semantics to say community guidelines serve to support a wide range of people and not behaviors. It has the same effect. It will drive away people who do not fit your definition of "good" behavior. It's no different than homophobic policies that said we don't discriminate against gays, we discriminate against "bad behavior". And certain behaviors can drive away people, but censorship definitely does.

And I have to disagree with you about the worst communities. The worst communities are those with too much guidelines. Of course some guidelines are necessary, but mostly those involving harrassment, not speech. The US is based on the idea of less guidelines. North Korea, China, Russia, etc are based on "lots of guidelines". And the death spiral can go boths ways. Just as much to totalitarianism as it can go to anarcy.

Also, it's not an exaggeration that "insults and inflammatory language" is stifling. It's the definition of it. Anything can be considered insulting to anyone. That's why we have principled understanding of free speech. The basis of free speech is that you have the right to offend. Otherwise, you claiming that the earth is round is offensive and inflammatory to a flat earther and grounds for censorship.

You seem to think that just because I think someone should be allowed to say "an argument is stupid" is me advocating for anarchy or harrassment. I'm not. Also, "insults" aren't that insulting to everyone. Language that you find offensive isn't offensive to me. And I don't consider Linux's language to be offensive. But you do. But that's the point isn't it. Everyone has a diverse upbringing and diverse opinions.

Also I'd stay away from the term "bad behavior" because that's the same terminology the chinese government uses to crack down on its own citizens and oppress them. It's rather paternalistic and authoritarian which reminds people of the worse form of nanny states.

And last thing, why do you care how linux speaks. He is his own individual. Does he come to you and tell you how you should speak? I just find it the high of arrogance that you ( a relative nobody just like me ) has the gall to tell someone like Linux how he should speak or behave. If you don't like it, just don't read what he says. That's what I find frustrating. Why do you feel like you get to tell others how to live their lives?

At the end of the day, the people at HN can do what they want because it's their property. Regular users like you and I won't change anything. Just like we aren't going to change Linux or the platform he uses to express his opinions. I wish I could have changed your mind but I think I failed so I'll just end it here too. I just find it strange that anyone on hacker news would be demanding that linus torvalds or anyone for that matter be censored.

[rat9988]

Let passionate people be passionate, but there is no reason to accept immature and toxic behavior. I won't answer the rest, because I believe your opinion is stupid :)