[Windchaser]

Hacker News guidelines:

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

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

[rsoto2]

Where's the guidelines about misinforming people which has actual societal implications? Where are the guidelines for openly promoting products that harm people's mental and social health?

[Windchaser]

You can view the guidelines here, at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't think you need to attack someone personally, even if you believe they are promoting products that harm people's mental and social health. For most of us following along, it will be enough if you dismantle their arguments. What good does it do for you to harangue them?

I think this guideline: "Assume good faith", applies not just to the people we disagree with, but also the other readers -- meaning, that you can trust that other readers are interested in learning and seeing things correctly.

[Barbing]

Love your last point!

[rsoto2]

It does zero good "for me" but hopefully someone thinks twice the next time before expressing such a dumb incorrect opinion. Not sure why adults are such precious little creatures that can't deal with a bit of criticism. If being correct was a virtue instead of being nice we wouldn't be backsliding into a world of misinformation in which science is being dismantled and people are lynched on the streets while billionaire corporations use dumb people free propaganda spreaders.

[Windchaser]

> It does zero good "for me" but hopefully someone thinks twice the next time before expressing such a dumb incorrect opinion.

Well, I doubt it's going to change anyone's mind if it violates the community guidelines and then the mods pull it. No?

> Not sure why adults are such precious little creatures that can't deal with a bit of criticism.

In general, folks here will respond better to data-oriented rebuttals, rather than emotionally-driven ones. When you name-call, it brings more hot/negative emotions into it, and the focus shifts away from talking about the evidence, and towards those same hot emotions. It becomes more about the anger or defensiveness and less about the information.

If you want to change minds, then, focus on the evidence.

There's also the wider picture. If you build a community that focuses on evidence, and push away those who prefer abusive language, you'll generally draw more rational people. The discourse you get from those people is more interesting, mentally stimulating, and data-oriented.

On top of that, it's more emotionally healthy to have a community where people respect each other, where we extend good faith and assume that the people we're disagreeing with are fundamentally trying to hold the right views. It's good practice for seeing the humanity in others, and in general it does seem to be true here. Most folks here are indeed interested in coming to the correct position.

The folks here are also more than capable of handling "a bit of criticism", meaning, handling some abusive language coming their way. Indeed, the way they've chosen to handle it is by rejecting it, and saying they prefer to build a better community.