Hacker News Reader

>> the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site.

Pleasantly surprised to see you state/admit this - thanks dang <3

> reflective rather than reflexive responses

I understand where you are coming from. In my experience, the reflective response is often a steel manning of one's own position. This often involves framing, as in using phrases that are agreeable in another context into the author's position. The error I see is both sides of the argument constraining the scope of their discourse to only use information that supports their position. Lies by omission & more often than not, lying to oneself first.

In my experience, having tools to expand the contextual scope is vital, if not the definition, to supporting intellectual curiosity. That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting. I think being able to somehow deconstruct comments to extract the insightful (& indicative) as signal over the noise in the comment would also be useful. It's open ended on how that would be done but it's worth exploring IMO.

I think tools that improve expression, understanding, & evaluation of context are critical to improving cohesion across humanity. I am busy writing open source libraries with the intent of creating apps to support contextual expression & understanding. I hope others create & collaborate in building these sorts of tools (tech, social, spiritual, etc) because it may be one of the most important advances for healing our many divides.

---

> That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting.

I think the author's intent of expression is often not heard with the same context. So the meaning of what was spoken & what was heard is different. Often one applies their judgements to what was heard while not grasping the context of what was spoken.

Have you done any analysis on who downvotes/flags, on what they downvote/flag, & how often?

> I know it's not at all obvious how this topic can be within that spirit

It seems to me such important happenings demand curiosity from rational adults, and I'm struggling to understand why an otherwise-rational community would suddenly disagree... Anyway I appreciate your efforts in this thread and everywhere else on the site.

Also, it's amusing to me that, more often than not, discussions about this topic are derailed by discussion about whether it's possible to discuss the original topic in good faith, rather than any sort of blatant ignorance about the actual topic. It's very meta.

People who are "intellectually curious" about the Israel-Palestine conflict and its history should go read a book (or several)[0] instead of debating it on social media. At least that's my opinion.

[0] I would recommend this one, although I haven't yet made it very far (as it's very long): https://iupress.org/9780253220707/a-history-of-the-israeli-p...

The point was to hear each other, not to "debate", although it inevitably turns into that and worse.

Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.

I respect your opinion, but

> Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.

I and others in this thread have been trying to say that from experience, any discussion (unless maybe it's between trusted friends in a face-to-face interaction) about this topic turns into an absolute shitshow sooner or later. I'll admit that this isn't the worst I've seen on the internet, but scroll down far enough, and you'll find enough people engaging in basically flamewars.

"Hearing each other" is all well and good when we're talking about technology, where lots of people on HN are either very knowledgeable about a subject or can at least share their personal experiences. For a topic such as this, I don't think that the HN audience can give any particular insight. Nor do I think that this can be gleaned by individual news articles. The history of this conflict is incredibly complex and anyone who wades into inevitably discovers how little they know about it. That book I mentioned has more than 800 pages and it stops somewhere in the early 2000s, I believe (indeed, the first edition came out on a hopeful note in light of the Oslo accords).

I hear you, and it's all true, but I can only repeat what I said in the GP: despite all this, I think we have no choice but to try. To give up on that would be to give into the dehumanizing and dehumanized in ourselves. I can't go with that in good conscience and I don't think it's in HN's long term interest, even though it would be universes of easier to just act like it's not happening.

I did my best to moderate this thread, to the point of overload, and yes there was a lot of flamewar and guidelines-breakage that I simply couldn't get to.

IMO what we need to do is find at least a drop of (let's call it) heart in ourselves not only for the ones we identify with, but also for the ones we don't identify with. That's how we can start being human about this. If even a tiny amount of that is possible, and of course it is, then we owe it to ourselves to try.

I'm afraid I can't really follow your logic here. You seem to imply that a) one becomes "dehumanized" if one doesn't deeply care about the Israel-Palestine conflict and b) that caring about it implies one should discuss it with strangers on the internet.

I think neither of these is true. a) is IMHO false unless you care to a similar extent about all the other atrocities happening even as we speak - most of which elicit a response of "oh that's sad but what will you do". The reason why people care about this conflict (myself included) is because it has become a proxy conflict that is really about other things.

b) is IMHO false because the real action one should take if one cares about this is first and foremost contact anyone you know who is affected by this conflict - even if indirectly, say, by antisemitism or islamophobia - ask them how they're doing and express your support (not necessarily for their positions but for their plight).

I really don't understand what good it does anybody to engage in debate about a topic that is so politically charged and where almost everyone has only half-knowledge (or less).