[tptacek]

This is like the seeds of 3/4 of all the bad HN threads all in one blog post. We can relitigate the concept of psychiatry, debate the implications of big pharma, yell at each other about wokeness versus PC culture, pretend not to understand how trade shows work or, I don't know, find some way to argue about how they should be run... and who knows what else. And virtually none of the comments will be from people who have studied in psychiatry, are seriously engaged (pro- or con-) with pharma, or have ever run a trade show.

If it survives on the front page, we should make a bingo card for the thread; for instance, I should score a point the first time an HN user psychoanalyzes another user over the Internet on it.

I'm not saying the post is bad (I'm not a fan of this blog, but whatever; I'm a fan of lots of things you probably hate, too). But there's a difference between a bad blog post and a bad HN submission and this, to me, seems like an archetypical example of that.

[dkarl]

I'm glad I read the piece. It's going to generate some pointless, awful arguments here, but the comments aren't everything.

[tptacek]

The mods can turn comments off on posts, but rarely do. I think, if we want to broaden the kinds of stories that can survive without flagging, that should happen more often.

[dkarl]

I hope your comment stays at the top to at least inspire people to try to exceed your expectations.

[tptacek]

That is indeed part of why I wrote it.

[thrower123]

You have some very strong opinions about what kinds of discussion are suitable. Fortunately, those opinions are not universal.

Turning off comments kind of defeats the purpose of the site, to my mind. It's no fun when moderately voted links that generate no discussion park on the front page for extended periods of time as already happens.

[tptacek]

My opinions are pretty well documented in the site guidelines.

[thrower123]

Well, you've done a good job of spiking it.

[tomp]

I loved this post (basically a balanced criticism of psychiatry by a psychiatrist), and I think it makes a great HN submission.

[tptacek]

I actually think it's worth taking the time to break down what makes something a good or bad HN submission. Some elements present in this piece that, when combined, seem to drive the worst kinds of HN threads:

* A spicy take

* A subject almost no likely commenters have any expertise on

* A subject that lots of likely commenters have their own spicy takes on

* Invocation of "wokeness"

* Perennial HN punching bag target (here: pharma; could just as easily be something else)

Again these don't make the post itself bad. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying: grapes are great! But don't feed them to your dog.

[tomp]

I agree, but the benefit/interest in HN isn't just in comment threads... for me, it's my primary source of interesting relevant information (e.g. as opposed to news sites, which are mainly interesting but irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) information)... and sometimes, that's in comments, other times it's in the articles posted.

[dymk]

Your complaints pop up in basically any thread except for the most bland, or specifically technical, of posts here. Saying it's a bad post because it pinged something particularly offensive in your brain is your own biases talking.

[ve55]

Parent comment specifically states "I'm not saying the post is bad", yet you say "Saying it's a bad post because" in your response. It would be better to read their comment in full to attempt to better understand their angle before responding with a comment like that.

[dymk]

Let's try not to derail this with pointless semantic mincing; the comment above mine said this was "a bad HN submission". What else is that supposed to mean?

What salient difference could they mean between "A bad post" and "A bad HN submission", aside from them simply not having a coherent train of thought?

[ve55]

They meant that it is a good blog post (likely - not specifically stated), but that when posted on HN, will likely inspire bad comments. I interpreted your comment as conflating the concepts 'post' and 'submission' - the difference I saw was that I read 'post' with a non-HN context (a post on an external website), but submission with a HN context (specifically, a submission on HN).

[gph]

>And virtually none of the comments will be from people who have studied in psychiatry, are seriously engaged (pro- or con-) with pharma, or have ever run a trade show.

I mean that's how internet comments work on virtually any largish web site ever. I don't think submissions should be based on the commentary they might attract.

[CriticalCathed]

We're already off to a great start with your post. Thank you for your service.

[rhizome]

>I should score a point the first time an HN user psychoanalyzes another user over the Internet on it.

To be sure, I think it should be the first time someone estimates someone's political party based on psych comments, a reversal of the usual trope.

[tptacek]

Clearly another HN thread bingo square.