[david_w]

OK let me get this straight, just so I understand.

It's flamebait to recite the material and relevant facts about the Chinese Communist Party / dictatorship including the fact that they murdered the doctors who were trying to warn them and investigate it, after which this same dicatorship lied to the world about the spread of the disease and permitted tens of thousands of people to leave Wuhan provence, carrying what they knew to was a highly infectious virus with them. And now thousands are dead.

That is nationalism and flamebait and not the mere recitation of known facts ?

Seriously just trying to get my mind around the standards we're held to here at HN. We are supposed to deny or massage reality if it makes psychopathologically murderous and murderously irresponsible regimes look, you know, bad?

If that's not what you're telling me, then please, explain. Cite just one sentence or phrase which I wrote you think misrepresents reality and constitutes "flamebait".

I'm here all week.

[dang]

You're assuming that reciting facts can't be flamebait. Actually it easily can. Your reply here is even more in the flamewar style.

These comments are clearly fighting a political/national battle, and you can't do that and have curious conversation at the same time. Those are two different states of the nervous system. We want curious conversation here.

In case it feels like I'm saying this because I secretly support the other side: I'm really not. Comments in the flamewar style the other way get moderated just the same, when we see them.

When you're inclined to use labels like psychopathological murder or murderous irresponsibility, it's probably better to wait until your system shifts into a different frame. In case it feels like I'm picking on your personally: we all have our version of this, definitely including me.

Re facts: the thing to realize is that there are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves; humans do that. Which facts you select, which stand out to you as important, is not itself a fact—it's a consequence of how you see the situation and which side you identify with. Those on the opposing side select other facts.

If you show up in a thread with a bag of stones to throw at the other side, it doesn't make it ok if the stones are facts. What matters is the stone-throwing: it destroys the shared connection that makes good conversation possible. Actually, it's worse if the weapons are facts. They make harder stones, and harder hearts too.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[david_w]

I find I just can't relate to what you're saying although I can tell you're perfectly sincere and what you say makes sense insofar as its coherent and on topic. I get your point, I just disagree. What you're citing as selective fact presentation is called presenting a coherent point of view, buttressed by facts. If the facts hurt, then that's information to the injured party and information they need to have.

To give an analogy, our court system is adverserial and most debating societies follow the similar rules. The reason for this is because the best arguments are just that- arguments. In a debating society both sides present their cases as strongly as they can and the audience (here readers) decide. Asking someone not to form accurate, relevant, and decisive facts into an argument because the facts themselves will inflame people is, let's just say very Europeanish. It's akin to bannning so called "hate speech", which is nothing but speech that pisses off the people it exposes in some way.

I can't support a platform that has hatespeech moderation built into it.

What is going on is that people who do do what you're saying I am doing, attacking with selectively edited facts which distort reality, are ruining your platform. They suck up mindwidth and attention and litter the place with n-nested, tit-for-tat, lastwordistic threads. They ruin the joint. Then it's not an engaging place to be anymore and the Good People leave. Just so you know I know what you're talking about.

It's your place, not mine and you can do as you see fit. I can't participate as a commenter, that's all. There's just zero chance I'll change my approach, so it's better that I just refrain, which I am happy to do.

Reddit got it right btw, and then it went full totalitarian and those two things aren't unrelated. When you let people develop their ideas fully, using all the means their intelligence and imaginations can muster, then complex issues become clear. When that clarity doesn't favor your preferred narrative, as it didn't favor the narratives of the handful of Reddit mods who run that place, then you're put in the position of hosting your own ideological destruction. Not many Sam Adamses are ever birthed in the first place and certainly not enough to keep Reddit stocked with moderators, so, of course, they shut dissenting subreddits down faster than a kissing booth at the Wuhan county fair.

I voluntarily retire my commenting privileges.