Hacker News Reader

Comment by surfer7837 | Hacker News Reader

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it.

Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in person compared to online

I agree that it's a lot harder to lose your cool or offend someone.

But it's also much harder to argue about truths. People in my circles say things like "I did a lot of research and this new mRNA vaccine is dangerous."

And there's absolutely no way to disagree with that, because they can't present the research and you can't read for yourself what it was. You can't critique the author/organization, you can't dispute any "facts" in the article, etc.

I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, like "I believe in personal responsibility," and figuring out "I like this person even though I disagree with them." And terrible for intricate arguments like "gun restrictions will save lives," covid policy, etc etc.

I would like to see a shift back to previous times, where nobody was outing their political beliefs, and everyone didn't pretend to be an expert on domestic policies, covid, foreign policy, minimum wage, inflation, and everything else that they feel inclined to chime in about.

My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that.

Yep, its always "you need to read this to understand", or here is a statistic that proves my point.

> I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments,

Its good for exploration. But there needs to be trust between the parties in that no-one is trying to one-up the other or win some argument - this makes people defensive. Also arguing in front of others can cause this defensive effect as well.

> My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that.

100%. You want to maximize as many opportunities for people to get along with each other as much as possible despite their differences. People's views will change and evolve over time and very rarely from intimidation or pressure.

Wouldn't it be great though if there was such a platform where you could lose your cool with someone without having to be banned, moderated, etc. The ad-hominem part of the argument would be simply flagged as such. Kind of like Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.

You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.

But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?

See standing rules 42 through 46 but in particular 44 (2) which reads

If any Member be suspended under paragraph (1) of this order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for five sitting days, and on the second occasion for twenty sitting days, including in either case the day on which he was suspended, but, on any subsequent occasion, until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate.

I believe this can only be done in response to a motion and vote. The authority to unilaterally order a member to withdraw is only for one day see 43. So you are correct.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/stan...

No. Unmoderated and anonymous dialog has a way of straying into mudslinging on subjects of political expression. From your suggestion: flagging the “ad hominem part” is moderation and could be open to interpretation if flagged statements are or not. Thus brings to mind Burke, “The majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.” True as that is, though, there’s been a growing popularization across groups for adopting a victimhood complex to feel justified in claiming oppression. So, no - ironic to post here, but actually cogent debate requires a base degree of mutual respect - which requires a shared (global) “culture” - and less anonymity.

That’s not what to take away from the Westminster system. They famously used the term ‘tired and emotional’ to mean drunk but that’s banned now too. Yesterday at prime ministers questions Johnson used terms like Captain Hindsight, which many believe should have been dealt with at the time by the Speaker. One who says these rude words by a very low bar is the focus of attention for a minute as the Speaker tells them off and the obligatory apology happens. If you could implement all that I’d have a look in. Maybe you were thinking of parliamentary privilege? They can say things in debate that are banned outside for being trade or some state secrets, like the existence of the BT tower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com