[jessaustin]

Haha I just vouched it back from the grave... [EDIT:]... and now it's [flagged] again.

I suspect flaggers may not have actually read TFA. It was published in February, so it doesn't specifically refer to recent public demonstrations. It's pretty clear which side the author would take...

[jgwil2]

I think HN could really benefit from some adjustment of the flagging/killing process. An article like this is going to attract lots of knee-jerk flaggers based on the title alone, but the guidelines state, "...please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Perhaps in this case the title could have been changed under the "linkbait" criterion. It's just annoying to see things flagged within minutes of submission when clearly no one has had time to read it.

[542458]

A 100% agree that adjustment is needed. I don't even like TLA (end plagiarism detection? Really?), but I think the discussion around it is valuable.

The flag system gives a small number of users the ability to kill articles entirely too fast.

[chipotle_coyote]

Yeah, I don't think it should be flagged. It's a provocative title, but it's very much an argument about pedagogy and technology in education. It should be in HN's wheelhouse.

(I don't see how to try and "unflag" it, but I'm still not 100% of some of the moderation system here even after all this time.)

[gremlinsinc]

the more upvotes it gets, I think reversed flags.

[DyslexicAtheist]

the fact that this gets flagged tells me people didn't even read the article and just got offended by the title.

[thih9]

It could be useful to have "February 2020" in the title.

[mmm_grayons]

I can't seem to vouch it, so I guess it's dead now. I think there's some rule that after getting resurrected and re-flagged, something is dead? I looked at this and figured it might be someone yelling for more "disband the police" or whatever, and the title is pretty inflammatory, but I clicked and agreed with the article. I suppose HN could replace every link with a tracking link to force people to click before flagging/voting/commenting, though that runs into concerns with data collection...

[evrydayhustling]

Just want to add a voice that this should not be flagged.

[syndacks]

This is an extremely important topic. OP I think you are sort of shooting yourself (and the topic) in the foot with the use of "shit" -- can you not use a more descriptive word please?

[wpietri]

"Cop shit" is excellent idiomatic English for conveying what they mean. The title is clear, accurate, and attention-getting.

My general experience is that people who get wrapped around the axle over a word also wouldn't have engaged with the topic if a different word were chosen.

[hatboat]

The title is far from "clear" or "accurate". Attention-getting for sure.

I had no idea what the premise of the article would be without clicking on it. The article's thesis: "abolish cop shit in the classroom" would make a more accurate title (albeit still inflamatory to those sensitive to the language).

[wpietri]

Titles aren't always supposed to be perfect summaries. Nobody reasonable complains that "The Sun Also Rises" is not in fact a book about daybreak. But if you're concerned about people's "sensitivity", then presumably putting "cop shit" in the title is even more important, so that those delicate flowers know not to click.

[smacktoward]

I used the title the author of the article gave it. I generally try to do that when submitting, unless there is a very very good reason not to -- e.g. it's something completely incomprehensible to someone who isn't a regular reader of that specific site.