[bugsy]

That's part of the edit after an extremely useful post with insight into the reality started getting downvoted because it didn't conform with the political or whatever beliefs of the downvoters. HN would be better without the pathetic reactionary losers who use downvoting to promote their political beliefs.

[aasarava]

Bugsy, I don't doubt that a lot of really horrific stuff has gone down in Saipan, owing in large part to the US's willingness not to enact labor laws there until just recently. But can you see how your method of saying this out overshadows the point your trying to make?

If someone were to walk up and say "Mexicans are lazy," most of us would consider that person racist. Nevermind that "lazy" is a culturally relative term, but you go way beyond that when you describe the Saipanese as "the worst fundamentalist christian ignorant half retarded hillbilly sex fiend town straight out of the movie Deliverance...", and you only hedge that toward the end by saying your comments apply to the people in power.

You getting downvoted has nothing to do with people trying to promote political beliefs. (Most of us didn't have any opinion on Saipan until now.) It's about maintaining the otherwise typically high quality of discussion on HN.

Want to point out that Saipan's lack of labor laws led to terribly exploitative behavior up into this decade? Please do. Want to share your personal frustration in dealing with Saipan's corruption? Sure, I'm interested. But please leave the abusive ranting for someplace else.

[raganwald]

HN would be better without Ad Hominem Abuse such as calling people “monkeys” or “pathetic reactionary losers.” I don’t normally respond AND downvote, but these words have earned an exception.

[ansy]

In fact abusive language is against the HN guidelines[1] under "In Comments":

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[krschultz]

I imagine the downvotes have a lot more to do with the way you wrote and not what you wrote.

[sc68cal]

Perhaps, but again - there is some seriously messed up stuff going on there. It's hard to not be outraged and have that spill over. He's outraged at the situation (in addition to being downvoted for the TRUTH), so I think it's understandable.

[anamax]

> (in addition to being downvoted for the TRUTH),

How do you know why he's being downvoted? I'd guess that he's being downvoted for his ignorant bigotry towards "hillbillies".

> He's outraged at the situation ..., so I think it's understandable.

Sorry, but outrage, legit or not, is not an acceptable excuse for slaming people who have nothing to do with whatever it is you're outraged about.

[rhizome]

Well, elevating form over content is a hallmark of the superficial. Formalism dictates that the way something is said is more important than the meaning of the words.

[Gormo]

But form is content in its own right; in a forum, the tone, diction and precision of someone's contribution contains a lot of metadata about their own emotional investment in the topic, relevant background knowledge, and willingness to participate in constructive discussion.

Bugsy's comment may have included some factually accurate content, but his form of expression is a signal of questionable credibility and a potential conversational rathole (such as this has become) should one choose to engage him further.

[Natsu]

And ignoring form causes negative reactions that are best avoided, particularly in cases like this where they are unnecessary.

What's better is a happy medium, wherein one does not go overboard in either direction.

[lotharbot]

I wouldn't say we've elevated form over content. Only that we require form to meet certain minimal standards. This requirement allows us to keep discussions productive and evidence-focused -- in other words, our standards for form result in improved content.

Ignoring those requirements leads to low-content discussion like, for example, this one.