[dang]

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe your political opponents better, or don't feel you do; but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting to it. This kind of thing leads to its destruction, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[pstuart]

@dang, I'm sorry that wasn't my intent and I was doing my damndest to stick to facts. I don't see these people as opponents and I'm not trying to "win", only to try to find some sort of mutual understanding.

This is a third rail I'll never touch here again, but I'd like to point out a couple of things for closure.

* What has been happening in the last 3+ years is not normal, and much of the population is terrified by what is happening and what is likely to happen. I am one of those people

* Politics operates in two realms: policy and theater. I've normally no interest in the latter but it has taken center stage.

* United we stand, and divided we fall. I believe that there are active efforts to promote division and my hope is for unity. And division that occurred here was counter to my goals (but I should have known better).

* Many of my fellow citizens also believe that the GOP has become a cult, centered around the topic of discussion. Most people think that cults are not a good thing.

I could go on and on, but I won't because it will fall on deaf ears.

Thank you for helping to keep this forum as wonderful as it is, and once more, I'm sorry to have cause any problems.

edit: the "deaf years" was about those that I was trying to have a discussion.

[dang]

I believe you! Also, I don't think it's necessarily best to treat these things as a third rail, since the only way we're going to learn as a community to stay within the functional range on hard topics is by practice.

I feel like I should explain something about moderation. There's a sense in which a lot of this is fairly mechanical. When I post a reply like I did upthread, I'm reacting to statements like "you are [...] effectively trolling now", "If you were actually interested in dialog", and so on. Such things can be removed without changing your views or compromising your argument. It's also in your interest to do so, since you're trying to stick to facts and your intention is to find mutual understanding.

The reason why we have to moderate on that fairly mechanical level is that these things have mechanical effects on discussion threads. When they're present in a discussion, it's impossible for people to see past that layer and give genuine attention to what the other party is saying, let alone find mutual understanding. This aspect of moderation is rather superficial because these dynamics are superficial. They're critically important, though, because if we can't take care of that layer, we'll remain stuck there—or actually degenerate into worse.

(That's not the only aspect of moderation, fortunately, but it's a common one.)

[pstuart]

The trolling comment was a mistake. I think it was true but it didn't add to the conversation. Following that logic I should have just dropped the conversation right there.

I wish there was a way to have these more challenging conversations here but I don't think it's possible. I think that there's an inherent combativeness that overrides everything else and I've yet to understand how to disarm it.

Again, thank you and I'll do my damndest not not to pee in the pool.