[BlackDeath3]

>Because breaking the rules (like what "fits HN") is part of being a hacker. Or a human.

This sounds like justification for having no rules. I don't know if that's a good idea.

>Plus, that's how social sites work. There's no "why X is on top" -- it's on top because it was voted on top.

This is fair enough, I think.

In any event, R.I.P. Robin Williams!

[coldtea]

>This sounds like justification for having no rules. I don't know if that's a good idea.

Does it seem like some general anarchy has erruped on HN, and literary all kinds of posts have been voted on top?

I don't think so: it's just some rule-bending when HN voters feel like it.

[BlackDeath3]

I haven't suggested that general anarchy has erupted. I've suggested that "breaking the rules is part of being human" is a crappy justification for breaking rules.

[coldtea]

Perhaps you need a better justification on a break-by-break basis, but as a general philosophical/stance-on-life justification, it holds up.

I mean, if we were to really discuss this on a substancial level you'd also have to justify what is so great about following rules in the first place. After all, people have been following stupid rules (including laws) for ages.

[BlackDeath3]

But if I were to do that, I'd have to go deeper. I'd have to start justifying everything that I do. And I mean everything. I'd have to justify my justifications, and justify those meta-justifications. I'd have to justify the need to justify things at all. Soon, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed because it would take me all day (perhaps longer!) to justify doing so.

I'd certainly also have to justify having this conversation with you. I can't do that, so thanks anyway.

[seanmcdirmid]

Some dork already flagged the story, so its been knocked to page 3 or 4. Even if you don't think the content is appropriate, the problem with the flag approach is that it will keep popping up around the whole day since people think it hasn't been covered yet.