I downvote you but I don't flag OP, despite feeling the same about both of your posts. OP is at the very least trying to understand, even if they feel it is unfair, they leave the space for difference of opinion, not being right.
back
1 comments
I accept your downvote. All I ask, if you want to determine who is acting in good faith here, is that you click through OP's submission history: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=silexia
Why do you think it’s bad faith? It’s mostly political, but some people here are too and not all posts involve politics (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41195641).
OP definitely appears conservative. But how do you know they’re intentionally trying to stir trouble, vs. being naive (...maybe, hence conservative...) but genuine?
And do you think it’s a net benefit for posts like these to be flagged vs. visible, when the comments provide direct evidence contradicting OP's assumptions (Fox News is not blocked on HN)? It's always hard to change people's assumptions, and sometimes impossible, but why not try?
> But how do you know they’re intentionally trying to stir trouble, vs. being naive
This is not a Hanlon's razor situation. HN has pretty clear guidelines about what a good submission is:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities
> And do you think it’s a net benefit for posts like these to be flagged vs. visible
No opinion, I consider flagging to be one of HN's most poorly-implemented features. I leave showdead on at all times.
We are not supposed to use past posting as proof on HN, we are supposed to respond to what was said. One of those unwritten rules which most get. Do you really believe that I can't find something in all of your posting history that does not conflict with what you say here?
Edit: Your editing your original post proves my point.
I perfectly well trust that you can. In this instance, there is ample proof that the poster does not adhere to HN's submission guidelines. If that's an uncouth judgement, please exercise the downvote.
Why did you edit your post? It had some worth, but you edited into something of no worth, limp partisan bullshit.
I clicked into OP's submission history and remembered that they were not a good-faith user, so it was more intellectually honest to cut to the chase.
So you decided to act in bad faith to make my response look like bad faith?
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I don't believe I did. Your first comment narrowly avoided my original draft, and the subsequent edit wasn't related to your disagreement.
I don't consider it a tacit rule that submission history is off-limits. dang can clearly make it private if that's a concern, but cross-referencing users to keep them honest is an ordinary forum tactic for determining good-faith. It's beneficial to moderators when they're judging patterns of behavior, and it's beneficial to users for the same purpose.
You're not going to bully me into editing my original post back, and I definitely can't delete it once you leave a comment below it complaining. I think my stance was principled and I'm willing to hear you out if you think that my edited accusation is off-base. Otherwise, we have nothing constructive to discuss here.