[synetic]

I’ve been on this site since the beginning. I change usernames periodically. I understand the desire to avoid flame wars.

Here’s a sincere question. If I called Charles Manson a bastard would that be flamebait? Are we at the point that calling out the objectively verified despicable acts of a person is flamebait?

It wasn’t a swipe at the man. Sinead suffered a lot for ripping his image apart. She has died now. It is appropriate to point out she did not deserve the reaction and that the protector of her abusers did deserve to have his image shredded.

It’s always ok to call out those who abuse or protect abusers. I care not that my post got flagged. I’m glad of it. I feel a tiny bit like Sinead. Even after all that is known about John Paul 2 people still can’t face reality about the man.

We obviously don’t agree. I’ll stop posting about this and just read all responses.

[dang]

"That bastard John Paul II" was obvious flamebait—of course it was a swipe. You're broadcasting to thousands of people when you post here. Did you really think some people wouldn't react? Is it a high-quality conversation about Sinead O'Connor to have people yell at each other about popes?

> It’s always ok to call out those who abuse or protect abusers. I care not that my post got flagged. I’m glad of it. I feel a tiny bit like Sinead

We're trying to avoid online callout/shaming culture on this site. It reliably leads to poor-quality discussion. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a... Generally, the state of high indignation (and its correlate, high moral justification) isn't congruent with the intended spirit of conversation here.

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

[dredmorbius]

Talking truth to power is virtually always a swipe. But a richly deserved one.

I understand HN's viewpoint on this. I disagree with it in the extreme.

[mixmastamyk]

It's one thing I hate about this site. You can't tell "the truth as you know it," and instead have to pretend to be "curious." I'm generally curious, so it's not a difficult requirement most days.

Well, guess what? Some things are actually bad-and it's obvious—and we are experienced enough to know it. Child abuse would fall into that category. After confirmation, no "curiosity" is needed in that instance.

(I understand the angle about conversation deteriorating quickly, and am still here, right? But damn I hate it when we can't state obvious truth because it is not "polite." )

[synetic]

[flagged]

[dang]

Gratuitous Hitler invocation usually is.

This type of trolley-problem questioning doesn't work for getting a clearer picture of HN moderation. HN is not a letter-of-the-law kind of place. There's no comprehensive doctrine covering all cases, and it would be foolish of us to try to make one.

[wahnfrieden]

[flagged]

[dang]

You're correct that little curious conversation is possible about Hitler. Even Satan has a better chance.

The rest of your post is a caricature but I assume you meant it that way.