|
|
|
|
|
|
by dang
1099 days ago
|
|
|
You posted a bunch of really long generic ideological flamewar comments in this thread. That's not what we want here. It has nothing to do with your specific views—we don't track the comments for those, nor care what they are. We just don't want that type of discussion. If you think someone else was also doing that and didn't get a proper scolding, I'd be happy to take a look at links. |
|
|
Anyone making false statements like that is going to be corrected. To do nothing is to accept it by consent and all that entails (Sapir-Whorf). I flagged it, no action was taken. Falsehoods were found in both.
As I said, its intolerable being forced to accept falseness and be punished or prevented from being able to do anything about it.
I'll leave if it becomes clear that's what this is and be glad to do so as I'm sure any reasonable and intelligent person would.
Ideology is normative, I kept strictly to addressing deceptions, and falseness which were not normative. You clearly read it as ideological. Many people confound and conflate the two because people who use deception and deceit often intentionally corrupt language for the purpose of dual meanings. This dissembling is pernicious, even when talking about systems clearly, communication can become impossible because many deceitful people try to make it about ideology which this is not that.
Psychopolitics first addressed this form of dissembling in the literature early 50s iirc. Also, this duality of tokens makes it impossible to filter effectively because it breaks determinism, a required property for computation. So this is strictly up to the mods to police at scale.
If there is to be none of one, there should be none of either. I'm fine with that as long as you moderate and censor people like the person I responded to equally.
Though that would be in opposition of what you have previously said about who moderates what and how the site is run (hence the request for clarification). It would be better to have clear rules than addressing conflicts like this adhoc and after the fact (in terms of your time, and my time).
TL:DR I would not have said anything, if they had not made a false statement, the same goes for the follow-on response. There is no criteria by which you can determine the post meets the referenced rule before a response is made, and its normative based on the mods. A poster will always have violated the rule before they knew they violated it simply by responding as one must do.
You do not let false statements stand unless you agree with the statement. This is core to any communication as any number of professionals who have degrees in legal, communications, or philosophy will confirm.
Someone claims its ideology, and me communicating that's not what this is about doesn't make what I'm communicating about ideology, or more accurately normative or value-based.
I get it, if the rules need to be revised appropriately, that's fine. It just needs to be clear so we can follow them, and as a reader, hopefully not have to deal with coercive or subversive narratives or communications always blasting in my face when I just want to read the news, reporting it, and then being told the mods allow it and then holding me to a different double standard when I follow the advice given. That's how it looks.
Incidentally, anyone reporting this to you should also be equally censured for wasting your time and more importantly not reporting the other person. To me this seriously is starting to look more and more now that I think about it; like a malicious compliance effort to get you to jump in and by extension threaten your credibility and HN news credibility, while promoting a false narrative by extension of outcome.
If I was in your position, I'd be upset because your rules say nothing about how you deal with intentionally false reports either, and its hard to say this isn't that considering I was reported, but the others involved conveniently were not and I'm not the instigator I was simply responding so it looks targeted.
To me it looks like someone wound you up taking advantage of inconsistencies in your rules and set you loose on me to promote a false narrative and silence a critic.
Since we've previously spoken and you seemed fair and honest in our previous communications, I have to wonder if that's what's actually going on here now that I've had some time to think, its far more likely someone is manipulating you than you'd try to burn your credibility and service down for no perceived benefit (Occam's Razer).