Hacker News Reader

Comment by splintercell | Hacker News Reader

In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods.

I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.

What specifically do you find incendiary? I'm not using Washington political euphemisms, but I honestly fail to see anything "rabble-rousing, seditious or subversive" about what I've said. I'm calling it like I see it. Please do explain.

How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?

The comment includes highly partisan and uncivil language:

> spewing bullshit

> the clownshow in office

> D's get to clean up the mess

Regardless of how right (or wrong) the commenter may be, this type of language does not invite or encourage the civil and productive discourse that is strongly valued on HN. There are ways to express such opinions in a civil way, though it requires more effort. Given the current polarized environment in the US, it's difficult enough to engage in constructive discourse on political topics: on a forum such as HN with only text as the medium of communication it's even more difficult without using language used above.

For the record, I use 'bullshit' as a technical term[1].

I can imagine why someone might dislike 'clownshow'. Frankly, I find it accurate, or I wouldn't have written it, and I didn't use such terms in the past to describe pols I disagree with - it is specific to what I see as a historically bad outfit.

"Clean up the mess" is "uncivil"? Sorry, that's silly, and another demonstration that politically correct language policing isn't just for lefty college-kids.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122...

I also support this use of 'bullshit' as a technical term and recommend that book to anyone who will listen. Your language strikes me as disgruntled rather than incendiary, but then my political views are already closely aligned with yours.

Civility is important for discourse, but so is clarity of expression, and I do not consider it uncivil to express a firm opinion bluntly whether or not I agree with it.

Why do you like playing moderator? If you want to be a moderator, email dang, dude.

Thank you for a clear example of the difference between vulgar and offensive.

I actually think the "D's" are equally bad, if not worse. But saying that potentially leads to an argument. That's why it's incendiary, because it leads directly to bashing, skipping civil debate.

Plus, it's condecending to at least half of the people in the U.S.

The parent commenter acts as though they know they're correct and every other person is wrong. The comment comes across very close minded, and not really in the spirit of discourse. They even hint that they don't see the point of discourse:

> Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power.

The only thing it added was to discount other views and generalize "R's" as "clown" supporters, which just isn't the case. There was no other addition to the conversation.

Further, I dont even see a way to respond to that comment without seemingly defending the "clown"... Which would certainly lead to a more incendiary argument.

You can't join in the political discussion and wag your finger at those talking politics. I also don't think much of the both sides are equally bad dismissal of the current disaster that is American politics. Its a disappointing lack of analysis.

I understand that in the current state, not much argument can be made, but if qe roll the clock back to September of last year, a scant 8 months ago, the actions of "both" parties was pretty equally toxic. As I know this will draw fire from one side or the other for not being biased in their personal direction, I cannot and will not support either party due to nonpolitical bias. Analysis of a political state cannot be true if viewed over a (horrible) four month period. The current Democrats took to Reagan policy, as a whole, pretty well. It's just a slightly different flavor. All that having been spewed out of my opinion hole, is Hackernews going to become embroiled in "my team v. your team" political discussions? I gotta find something new to read on the bus, if so (insert pedantic emoji here)

I wasn't trying to join the discussion. I was trying to point out the futility of having discussion with someone like the grandparent commenter.

I just threw in some cheap shots, similar to what they were doing, in order to make a point.

HN isn't generally liberal leaning. HN is generally libertarian leaning. Not all of us, of course, but the sentiment here is very pro-business.

I'd gamble the liberals have the plurarilty, but just with a much higher representation of libertarians than broader society.

I can agree to that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207836

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13932041

It really isn't. Most threads that touch on political or economic topics have a majority being pro-regulation, pro-spending, etc.

Things are complicated because many tech libertarians are liberal-libertarians who support things like basic income, but that doesn't change the overall slant of HN. Also note most liberals are ostensibly pro-business, they just think the gov't needs to step in to regulate the free market.

Comments like the grandparent are an example of liberalism without any semblance of objectivity. He disagrees with someone, and, rather than think about why someone would hold those views (even if erroneous), takes for granted that they are irrational, illogical and driven by a hidden agenda.

Apparently observing objective reality is incendiary?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com