←back to thread

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

(apnews.com)
517 points xbar | 1 comments | 26 Jan 24 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
jnsaff2 ◴[27 Jan 24 10:14 UTC] No.39154273[source]▶
What is the guidance regarding commenters who are obvious trolls, propagandists and bad faith actors?

Being kind to them is completely wasted effort.

Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded.

However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.

replies(4): >>39154762 #>>39155382 #>>39158911 #>>39201710 #
tim333 ◴[27 Jan 24 11:45 UTC] No.39154762[source]▶
Polite factual refutation probably works.
replies(2): >>39154794 #>>39154839 #
cultofmetatron ◴[27 Jan 24 12:00 UTC] No.39154839[source]▶
yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the very end and then gaslight you about needing to backup my opinions as if there weren't at least 2-3 inks for every assertion I make.

one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing

replies(2): >>39154965 #>>39155620 #
YeGoblynQueenne ◴[27 Jan 24 12:25 UTC] No.39154965[source]▶
So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.
replies(1): >>39155050 #
jnsaff2 ◴[27 Jan 24 12:39 UTC] No.39155050[source]▶
What I have observed is that you refute that actual bullshit with facts and then they come back with some other "whatabout" and new bullshit.
replies(3): >>39155215 #>>39155274 #>>39162285 #
dang ◴[28 Jan 24 03:31 UTC] No.39162285[source]▶
The trick is to realize that if you've made a good point, readers will be smart enough to notice that the other person is just coming back with new bullshit. You don't need the last word to win an argument; being first to walk away actually adds power to your argument. If you've said what needs to be said, no "whatabout" can cancel it, and you'll weaken your case if you chase after it.

I still suck at this in practice but I'm sure of it in theory!

(I'm working on a longer reply to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911, but I can't resist replying here too because I feel like I figured this one out after 15+ years of frustration.)

replies(2): >>39162971 #>>39201957 #
1. dredmorbius ◴[31 Jan 24 10:00 UTC] No.39201957[source]▶
Agreed on both the advice and the difficulty of engaging in practice.

What I'll frequently do where a counterparty has looped back to an earlier position is to simply link directly to my earlier response to that point, with the implicit statement "we've already covered this ground, I'm not going to repeat myself".

Walking away from such discussions is still challenging as there's always a temptation to respond. This is where employing HN's thread-collapse feature is useful. I'll typically do this at some point above my final response. The threads remain closed until the post is about two weeks old per earlier discussions with dang.