Hacker News Reader

The guidelines ask you not to complain about downvotes, but it's possible that users voted you down because you've taken the thread off topic straight into tedious controversy.

> Yep. This has what has happened in the Arab world. Bunch of testosterone with nowhere to go, so they joined a "Holy War" / "Jihad" and blow up a bunch of people and places. This is also the reason why the refugees from the Arab countries molested women in Germany and Austria.

This counts as introducing a flamewar topic without anything new to say. Please don't do this.

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

Quoting the xenophobic ranting feels suboptimal.

This is a very overacted summary of a very interesting thought. I don't think it should be down-voted but rather explored. I might be giving you more credit than it is socially appropriate for this kind of statement, but it definitely caught my attention and triggered cognitive mini-explosion :)

I think the main problem with GP's comment is that he presented a hypothesis as fact.

It is so weird to see an ideology proved correct (rape culture, toxic masculinity et al) with concrete evidence, and then see that evidence ignored because of the cognitive dissonance with their pro-refugee stances.

The Muslim world also has a strong polygamy bent, derived from the four wives of Muhammad, and polygamy has a lot of associated negative externalities.

"Cognitive dissonance" and "value signaling" are Internet tropes meant to destroy discussion by suggesting that no disagreement with one's positions can be made in good faith. Among many problems with those tropes, there is no way to deploy them civilly: they are intrinsically uncivil, suggesting as they do that people who disagree with you are writing in bad faith.

You can't argue like that here; remaining civil in disagreement is the first and most important rule of the site.

That article offers low quality evidence, and is in no way concrete unless you have confirmation bias.

Likely because it's highly likely to lead to low-quality inflammatory discussion.

I feel that's a little sexist.

I'm not sure why folks think that men are only capable of causing harm when men have nothing to fuck.

Good luck illustrating this.

Oh wait, why bother in a democracy! People KNOW it's true already.