I think that there is a clear distinction between pure negativity and "snark" or sardonicism. It is possible to be genuinely, objectively critical of things without being arrogant or sarcastic. Criticism is a necessary facet of discussion, and is indicative of a thoughtful community. "Asshole-sim" is not. I'm of the belief that the discussion on HN tends towards the former.
>This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
>Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement.
I'm unsure of what you're advocating for. Are you for expunging the hyper-negative, misogynistic near-spam of Reddit, or for doing away with negativity entirely? (My hunch is latter, as fighting spam is trivially excepted and needn't be argued.) The latter is incredibly dangerous and will work to the detriment of the community inasmuch as HN, as a community of generally-intelligent individuals, is capable of analyzing a story to a greater extend than most news organizations or communities; and some sort of assault on negativity would remove the ability for one to introduce warranted skepticism or to dissent from general discussion. Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity.
"Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity."
Completely agree with you. I've seen way too many comments that where downvoted only because of the tone (even though the content itself was very relevant), or because it expressed a dissident, politically incorrect idea. When I see such a comment being downvoted, I automatically upvote it, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the content. I don't hang out here to read opinions I'm already agreeing with. I'm far more interested in intelligently argumented opinions that contradict mine. So, no it's not fun to be bashed by the sarcasms of someone else, but if the opinion contained in the bashing is relevant, then we should just suck it up, and answer to the content.
You're mistaken. A comment with good ideas presented in an insulting/snarky/offensive tone should get downvoted here. In that rare case, it's often helpful to write a comment explaining why it was downvoted (perhaps even with a link to the guidelines), and encourage the poster to rewrite it in a tone that fits the room it was spoken in.
Some people will understand, rewrite, and become productive members of the community. Others will get offended, write back with an angry rant about censorship or something, and with luck find themselves hellbanned. Those are the people who just aren't ever going to be welcome here. Fortunately, the rest of the internet seems designed for them to fit right in.
Anger, silly jokes, one-liners and memes are all over that thread. The fact that so much of it will still be there at the end of the day is the problem we're facing.
Compare to the discussion on this item, with people stating real arguments using entire paragraphs. Plenty of disagreement, certainly some negativity, but mostly civil (or greyed out).
So no, we're not trying to get rid of negativity. We're just trying to maintain a place where adults can hold civil conversation.
Thanks for the link. I remember the first time i made a really silly comment without reading the full story i was put into place (downvoted ruthlessly) by the community and i knew i had done something terrible. This is the post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2825177. From then on i really took sometime without commenting on hn not because i was angry, but because i was scared of being downvoted. It taught me i needed to get my facts right before commenting on hn however much harm i never meant to cause.
>This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
>Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement.
I'm unsure of what you're advocating for. Are you for expunging the hyper-negative, misogynistic near-spam of Reddit, or for doing away with negativity entirely? (My hunch is latter, as fighting spam is trivially excepted and needn't be argued.) The latter is incredibly dangerous and will work to the detriment of the community inasmuch as HN, as a community of generally-intelligent individuals, is capable of analyzing a story to a greater extend than most news organizations or communities; and some sort of assault on negativity would remove the ability for one to introduce warranted skepticism or to dissent from general discussion. Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity.