Tell HN: Political Detox Week – No politics on HN for one week

Not to mention that "can we please stop with all the politics" is not political neutrality, it's a position that supports the status quo.

Silence assists certain forms of repression.

Precisely. When you hear the phrase "can we stop talking about politics" it is almost always coming from the privileged who are benefiting massively from the status quo.

And it's already the case on HN that political discussions are quickly flagged into oblivion, so I'm not sure how this current week will be any different.

I was pretty let down that HN did not do more to protect political discussions during the US election cycle and I really didn't see all that much vitriolic behavior in the first place. Even if there is bad behavior though, is that something that we need to be protected from at all times? Maybe it is better to let it happen, point it out when we see it, and then hopefully learn to discuss more civilly as a community in the future.

How can you come to such a conclusion?

"Can we stop with the politics" doesn't take away your right to protest or discuss politics _elsewhere_. It just means someone is tired hearing the same arguments rehashed over and over on HN.

That's one point of view. Another is that the people who speak the loudest about political issues have the most support and political power.

What else does status quo mean?

> Silence assists certain forms of repression.

So does sleep. Stop sleeping.

EDIT: Hours not spent fighting fascism are hours spent supporting it, right?

You're correct. Hours spent concern trolling are hours spent failing to oppose fascism.

We are talking about specialization here, not repression.

There are tons of political forums where ppl can express their opinions and discuss them.

It just does not have to be here.

A much better course of action would be attempts to improve political discourse, rather than demonize the adjective.

There are tons of tech forums too, are there not?

In fact, sub-reddit provides all the specialization you could need; I think "demographic" is usually what is valued in HN.

It's not about "political neutrality", though.

> tired hearing the same arguments rehashed

I'm tired of people not getting it the first time

> I really didn't see all that much vitriolic behavior in the first place.

There is a setting in your options called "showdead". Is that on or off for you? If it's set to off HN will hide some comments that have been killed by userflags. Thus, you may well have not seen the worst examples.

But this week someone (with more than 10k karma and an account that's over 3000 days old) called for Jews to relocate:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13056816

> But, yes, to the extent the inchoate Alt Right has a position on it, one of them is that Jews are to be "excluded if not eliminated from society", as in all societies that are not Israel. You've got your own homeland now, which we of the Alt West fully support, relocate yourself there. Specifically "diversity + proximity = war", and we want to avoid "war" such as it is or will be.

They've tried, hard, for some time now. Look through dang's and sctb's comment history to see how hard they've tried to improve the discourse.

I think a reform of the guidelines would be more effective. Not every mod-comment is seen.

I also think that specific flags would help, i.e. flag a comment that is against some guideline, with reference to the rule it broke.

And the problem isn't politics. It is someone posting the crap that spews out of their mouth. I have seen just as many "Jesus H-Dawg Christ... do they actually believe that?" posts regarding the navel gazing that is "Oh, we are above everyone and people have trouble understanding us because we are technical human beings who must communicate precisely because technology" and all the smugness stereotypically associated with SV startup culture. Not to mention people doing their best to mimic political shouting near each other in the Google Trusted Contacts thread.

The problem isn't topics. The problem is posters. If it was even tangentially related to tech (a new start-up community in a ghetto?), someone could post a well thought out and reasoned statement arguing against ethnic diversity. I would be amazed if they did, but anything is possible. Just like people can post incredibly shortsighted and emotional crap about what text editor to use.

So rather than make a blanket (and half-assed, at that) statement on a topic being banned (will be interesting to see what gets removed and what/who YC are financing or partnering with in the near future...), remove the negative posts while leaving the good.

What guidelines would you suggest?

> There is a setting in your options called "showdead". Is that on or off for you? If it's set to off HN will hide some comments that have been killed by userflags. Thus, you may well have not seen the worst examples.

This is a new account of mine but I have accounts going back many years. I usually flip [showdead] to 'yes' as soon as I get reminded by seeing a [flagged] comment.

> But this week someone (with more than 10k karma and an account that's over 3000 days old) called for Jews to relocate

I don't like that comment either at all, but I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad to know that someone who is solidly part of our community thinks that way and that someone who's probably very smart otherwise can simultaneously hold an opinion like that.

If we just ban that person or even worse disallow a wide swath of conversation topics, what good does it do? hga will still believe that (and he mostly expressed himself civilly, I guess). Are you worried that his ideas will spread? This may be where our mindset differs, but I believe the best and only course of action is for people like you and me respond civilly and with reason, and to prove why hga is misguided.

You would be in a better position to notice common fallacies etc, but any "list of logical fallacies" is a good starting point, especially those fallacies that can be used to insult, or insinuate, E.g. Specific guidelines about ad-homs. This would also include advice not to use personal information/ circumstances in an argument, unless you are happy to see them criticised.

One of the worst fallacies, us probably the kind that removed the civility from a discussion, and hence the good faith.

As a side note, the worst kinds of guideline is an ambiguous one, that leaves a lot to interpretation, e.g "act civil" is itself a nice rule, but otherwise useless, better off as a heading above specific clarifications.

HN doesn't need to be Wikipedia wrt comment rules, but a few Wikipedia style rules might be good.

This is a bit of an aside, but related. What's the appropriate response to someone who continues to post civilly and substantively but unceasingly on a topic, even when asked not to? Is it a type of trolling? Is asking them to stop silencing their voice? Or some sort of "agree to disagree"?

Another issue: when do some topics go beyond the pale and must not be tolerated? Is there such a point?

Perhaps these are off-topic for this thread, but they've been on my mind as part of the larger issues "detox week" is intended to address.

> This is a bit of an aside, but related. What's the appropriate response to someone who continues to post civilly and substantively but unceasingly on a topic, even when asked not to? Is it a type of trolling? Is asking them to stop silencing their voice? Or some sort of "agree to disagree"?

Probably to just stop replying to them. Sum up your thoughts and respectfully let them know that you've made your point as well as you can, and that this will be your last response. Or, the site could have a feature to block certain users for a period of time so that you just don't have to see it.

> Another issue: when do some topics go beyond the pale and must not be tolerated? Is there such a point?

Not for me, though I know I have a radical view on what should be the limits (or lack thereof) of freedom of speech. In reality though, there are certain types of speech that are illegal and so I understand that moderators will do what they have to in those situations.

I've also been thinking about these things. I am making a real-time reddit clone for fun and I am trying to strike upon a system that keeps discussion civil and substantive with as little need as possible for moderation. Not saying that every place on the internet should be a haven for freedom of speech though, and I really appreciate what dang and the other mods do here. By and large, I have few complaints about how HN is run and they've come up with many good ideas for algorithmically cooling down the flame wars (e.g. not allowing immediate replies when discussion gets heated).

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. The tension between creating a sustainable, civil community while still permitting effective freedom of expression is particularly difficult, in my opinion, and a worthwhile goal. Different communities do have different standards.

I look forward to the Show HN for your project! :)

This is a solved problem on usenet for decades, and that's the killfile [1]. It could be automated further by sharing killfiles (e.g. agree to add all of @Alice and @Bob's killfile as mine) or having a community killfile (ie, hellbanning)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file

> This may be where our mindset differs, but I believe the best and only course of action is for people like you and me respond civilly and with reason, and to prove why hga is misguided.

Sorry, but I don't think hga is merely "misguided."

He believes I should be forcibly deported to Israel and, if I refuse, should be killed. This isn't a belief that you argue with people about. We fought a world war against this belief.

You don't deal with neonazis by arguing with them. Whether Jews are equal humans or not should not be open to debate. You deal with neonazis by ignoring and/or banning them.

As much as I hate the doctrine of safe spaces, there's also the fact that I believe I should be able to come on Hacker News and expect to not have people calling for me to be murdered. Sorry if that's too much to ask.

Sorry. That comment is one among many I wish I could take back on HN.

I liked it.

It expresses, succinctly, the problem with 'either you are with me or against me', and its evily-more-persuasive cousin 'there is no apolitical speech'.

Sometimes I wish I was more apolitical, for my own sake, and if this defends the status-quo, so be it. What was the chance of making any difference anyway?