[zemo]

because if you have one party that is nice and polite and uses proper decorum and they are actively doing harm to another party, and that other party is upset because harm was done to them, and your response is "I will listen to the person that is behaving according to decorum", you are taking the wrong side. Bad actors -love- decorum, especially when access to understanding the rules of that decorum is itself a marker of class, tribe, or belonging in some way.

[throwamon]

It's really pretty simple: Being polite is better than not being polite. This doesn't mean you should never listen to someone who is angry, but it makes perfect sense to make it a site-wide policy to disallow this sort of behavior when the goal is to have productive discussions.

The problem is not politeness vs. impoliteness, but rather acting in good faith vs. pretending to do so. As readers, it's our responsibility (now more than ever) to tell good faith from trollish decorum.

[watwut]

This place allows angry response in technical discussion, but not to following guy: I had seen on HN a guy literally advocating forced marriage and forced sex - all politely. He also advocate for strong punishmemts of women who have sex out of wedlock.

Oh and forcing them to marry a guy they had sex with, regardless of whether it was rape or not. As social engineering to force good behavior on others.

He was all polite and serious. And I still perceive him as the biggest threat to my safety and well being. And the most uncomfortable thing that was tolerated here.

No, being polite is not better and does not make it better. If I am expected to be perfectly nice to him in response, well this place sux sometimes.

[munk-a]

I think it's also our responsibility as commentors to provide civil counter arguments so that other readers are able to see both sides of whatever topic is being discussed while not being pre-disposed to either angle. If you're an expert on a topic and see an error being stated you should clarify the discrepancy so that other folks less versed on the topic can see the error as well.

HN does have an assumption built into the guidelines that we should assume all arguments are being made in good faith - I don't actually have an issue with reading arguments made in bad faith in good faith myself - if someone makes a baseless claim that is refuted soundly and sanely in a comment then readers will be able to parse the two comments and will generally favor the one more clearly made in good faith. Ad hominem attacks actually hurt your argument here while on twitter they can bolster it - most of hackernews has no respect for "sick burns".

[zemo]

> I think it's also our responsibility as commentors to provide civil counter arguments so that other readers are able to see both sides of whatever topic is being discussed while not being pre-disposed to either angle.

it literally is not. The idea that all topics have equal both sides is not founded in any actual reality, it is a device used by those who would push falsehoods to demand an audience. Falsehoods do not deserve equal footing to truth.

[munk-a]

I disagree - the truth should never be harmed because lies are dressed in fancy clothes and the truth is a madman running through the streets in rags.

I am totally fine with bad faith actors making ad hominem attacks since it weakens their argument, but responses made in good faith should keep it civil to not erode their own argument. By the way, I can sympathize with you somewhat as this can essentially lead to sealioning[1] and that is extremely common elsewhere on the internet. But with strong moderation and flagging mechanics that actually work quickly on HN obvious sealioning can be quickly called out and quashed. I understand that some folks get their jollies by making low effort arguments and forcing others to put thought and time into crafting a well formulated counter argument - this will happen on the internet and it can be depressing to realize it after the fact but I think it's still worth it to try and craft well structured[2] responses when you can.

I don't actually disagree with this statement:

> Falsehoods do not deserve equal footing to truth.

and if I were running a talk-show called Hacker News then I wouldn't invite on folks with obviously racist viewpoints, but this is an internet forum where we can't pre-emptively screen participants. So I'd argue it's less about putting falsehoods on equal footing to the truth and more about making sure the truth of the truth isn't eroded by it coming out of a poor mouthpiece that biases opinions against it.

If someone wrote a comment that's obviously in error to you please do write a response highlighting what you think the problem was in a calm voice so that other people who might not notice the error can see it clearly spelled out. And do that because you're options are:

1. Respond in a sane tone

2. Respond with personal attacks or a poorly formed argument

3. Decline to respond

On that list is not the option to delete the comment you think it incorrect so, of the choices, I think #1 is by far the best option.

1. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ if you're unfamiliar with the term.

2. Well, except grammatically, I make no claims that my grammar is in any way well structured - sorry if it makes it hard to read!

[zemo]

it's really pretty simple: caring more about politeness than about the core of people's arguments is both intellectually dishonest and endemic on this site.

[nsonha]

Like stated in another comment, it's not about politeness, it's about constructive discussion, you present rational arguments and that only. If someone's position is abhorrent, no matter how they sugarcoat it, people should be able to tell

[zemo]

except that's not at all the case for two key reasons, and possibly more: for one thing, the core of your argument relies on the assumption that participants should be able to tell, but the only way to separate information from disinformation on a topic is if you're already educated about that topic. The alleged purpose of this discussion board is for people to become more educated about the topics we're discussing. If we assume that everyone is coming to the table already educated on the topics, what we're saying is that this is a space where beginners do not belong, and that this space is not an entry point for the industry. A space that is not welcoming to the uninformed is not a welcoming or friendly space, it is a hostile space.

The second major way in which this concept collapses is that HN has a dangerous addiction to labeling things ad-hominem attacks. If someone makes a horrific argument, and you say "that argument is horrific and leads to harm being done to others", you are in every case met with responses along the lines of "that's an ad-hominem attack" or "that's politics this space isn't about politics". HN posters time and time again fail to separate the argument being made from the person making them.

[throwamon]

It's not about being educated on a topic, it's about being good at reasoning (and as a consequence being able to spot bad reasoning). It's also about being curious and doing your own research when you see people talk (and disagree) about something that interests you. This is a much more general set of skills that anyone should have and it takes a lifetime to develop. There's no way around that.

> this is a space where beginners do not belong

Not true at all. There's a lot of introductory material hitting the front page every single day here. If you ask a technical question there's usually someone VERY knowledgeable who will be more than happy to teach you some things and point you to further guidance. I often see two people disagreeing about a topic they both know WAY more about the topic than me. What am I supposed to do? Tell them their knowledge is unwelcoming to me? No way! A level-headed dialogue between them is about the most productive form of teaching I could hope for.

You don't just talk over people who know their shit as if you knew more about it. You present your knowledge (and lack thereof) and ask questions, maybe build an argument. If they're interested in continuing, they will engage in a similar way. I don't see what's so "hostile" about that.

> "that argument is horrific and leads to harm being done to others"

If you just say that and leave it at that, that doesn't mean anything. It's not an ad hominem, but it's not an argument either. If you provide an argument and evidence, you should be taken more seriously. I can tell you I've seen A LOT more ad hominem attacks being labeled as such than actual arguments. What commonly happens, though, is a commenter mixes both a good argument with an ad hominem (or some other fallacy), and then others focus on the fallacy and not the argument. Of course that's bad, but it's all the more reason to not be fallacious.

[lovegoblin]

> Being polite is better than not being polite.

And if it is those aforementioned bad actors who get to define and gatekeep what it means to be "polite"?

[throwamon]

I don't think that's the case on HN, which is what is being discussed on this comment chain. If you're indeed referring to HN, I'd be glad to read an expanded argument.

I agree that on Twitter this is a much more complicated matter.

[munk-a]

Considering that downvoting and flagging have karma thresholds - coupled with the vouching mechanic for dead comments. I honestly think HN has a pretty good setup for this. We've also got something miles better than Reddit - a limit on how much Karma you can lose on a given comment. I think that works wonders against echo chambers by allowing objections and clarifications to be raised without any real fear of being karma bombed for it.

[oceanplexian]

I'm not sure that it is true that there is even such thing as decorum on social media, or if there was, if you could reasonably define it. The Internet is a global communications system linking hundreds of countries, thousands of cultures, and perhaps millions of sub-cultures, class affiliations, and tribes. Even the fact that we are here, on HN, speaking English puts us squarely in the minority of people who use the Internet.