Please don't do that on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully. This topic raises a lot of strong feelings in everyone. If your feelings prevent you from commenting within the site guidelines, please wait to comment until that's no longer the case.
This is important for preserving the community here, and it's important for another reason as well: to the extent that what you're arguing for is true, by posting aggressively and abusively you end up discrediting the truth that you're arguing for. That's not only not in your interest—it hurts everyone. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you this at least once before, so this problem is not limited to this topic.
For you it seems to be all about having a nice site. For me it's about having a nice world in which people can enjoy intellectual curiosity without being monstrously guilty for it.
> Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country.
Given how dedicated large sectors of the US tech industry are to silencing discussion, I can only say, I'll think about it. I might prefer to take my leave from this site than participating in it, to preserve something more valuable, more fundamental, while you explore this local optimum of discussion within a framework of normalizing genocide and sophistry with generous helpings of plausible deniability.
I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel.
I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic.
Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an important topic means that it's ok to let loose on others—because after all, they're right (as they see it), it's an important topic, and they feel strongly. Actually the opposite is the case, and as I tried to point out, you discredit your own views by behaving this way.
I know it isn't easy but it is possible to make your substantive points without name-calling, personal attack, or flamewar.
Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly.
Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair.
I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to start or prolong them in your mind. When someone says something I consider incorrect, I refute it. Yeah, I added a lot of extra here I guess, but even without that, long comments with a bunch of quotes and links tend to be my thing. FWIW, they tend to be a LOT longer first draft, if you can believe that. As much snark or passion may have remained in some, it's not that I'm not trying at all. If that (long comments and not letting someone have the last word unless I agree or we're going in circles) is considered "flamewar" I can't help it and must plead guilty and unrepentant and be removed. No hard feelings, either.
But I honestly I don't understand why "too much activity" becomes a problem for you, even on day old threads -- or if it even does, I don't really grok you in that regard. But that's been my impression, as if you think it takes away from discussion of other topics?
During times like these, just like, say, when Appelbaum got cancelled, I do kind of get this thing that Brecht described, where you feel you can't discuss innocent topics while this elephant is in the room. At least not endlessly. Unless it's right in my ball park, something else I deeply care about or know a lot about, I pass, I'm not going to read up and learn on something new and then form a comment based on that, as I otherwise might. Just not in the mood. What I'm trying to say is, if I didn't post these comments (minus the personal attacks, but let's call them activist or political and maybe a bit too long) I would post none, I wouldn't post on other subjects instead.
But I don't post in random threads and try to make them about the chip on my shoulder, either. That's the best I can do, really.
And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied. In other words, it's between consenting adults, and as long as it's really just disagreement and splitting hairs and all that, and not abusive, is that really a problem?
Again, other points taken, please don't take this as a long-winded way of say "yes, but" to name-calling and getting personal. It's just your usage of "flamewar" that is hazy to me. To me, flaming someone is name-calling and getting personal, but not a lengthy or "endless" debate as such.
The tricky things in society, the ones that matter deeply to people or which they literally need to live, just aren't like programming anecdotes and all that, where people can have different experiences and no friction. Of course you're right in that this means one should take extra care to not add friction, and I'll renew my efforts for that. But I don't think friction as such is always bad. Too much of it is, but having zero is also a red flag IMO.
Look, a lot of this thread was with me and I have some of my own thoughts on your comments, and why they're hard to deal with and/or flamebaight.
But I don't want to impose my thoughts on you - so if you want me to give you my POV, please let me know. Totally optional - no offense intended by offering, and no offense if you don't want me to write anything.
> And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied.
One minor technical point - I use a 3rd-party thing that gives me notifications to replies on my threads, which is probably true of some of the people you are talking with. So FYI that your statement isn't always true (and also FYI that this exists, if you're interested).
I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that.
Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing wrong with that in principle but sometimes people arrive with pre-existing talking points and whatnot and that's not curious conversation—it feels like being recited to tediously. I'd try to avoid that. But if you're relating to what the other person is saying, remaining respectful, and not just copy-pasting, there's no reason that can't be curious conversation, and it certainly doesn't need to be flamewar.
Ok I think I made my main points after all so I might not need to come back later :)
Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 is also borderline by HN standards, I'm afraid - but would probably be ok without the last sentence. Your comments will be better (for HN) and also more persuasive if you don't use overwrought rhetoric like that.
> Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!
When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow.
I honestly do not understand how that sentence could be more concise and clear. If someone reads something as fantastic as me "excusing killing Jews" into that, I have to ask, what in the world gave them that idea.
If I said "I'm under the impression you kept your comment short because you wanted to go back to kicking homeless people", and said that in a very polite way as I just quoted it, would you say "oh, that's a misunderstanding"??
Of course that's not fine, and no I didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything, and I often don't look at the threads in linear order.
If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, this by no means implies that the mods secretly agree with it. I understand the temptation everyone has to leap to that conclusion, but overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Still, users here need to follow the rules regardless of what other users do, and that applies to you the same as to me and anyone else. Changing the focus to someone else's misbehavior doesn't help. Everyone always feels like the other person started it and/or did worse, so that's just a recipe for a downward spiral.
What we need you (i.e. everyone) to do instead is absorb HN's guidelines, take them to heart, and then make your substantive points within that intended spirit, whether other people are doing this or not. If you're willing to do that, you can continue to post here and make your points. But we need you to stop breaking the site guidelines, which you've unfortunately been continuing to do. (And yes, I know other users are breaking the site guidelines too. If I could change that, I would.)
Thanks. I really just needed that acknowledgement to restore a sense of fairness, because I did assume if a response is called out, the context would at least be looked at. I am fine with adhering the guidelines though it's not always fair, or even when the other kids started it, etc. -- but using flags against a comment that is a reply to me, in a debate type situation, is just not something I can bring myself to do. Even in debates I am involved in maybe. Knowing that I if I called it out, I'd get a fair hearing, as I just did, is really all I needed.
I don't understand people who say this, I really don't.
If I were to say "the US is capable of nuking Iraq and killing most of their civilians", that would just be a true statement of the capabilities of the US. That they chose not to do so during the Iraq war is proof of something about the US's intentions.
It's proof of the value that the US places on human lives, despite it sometimes costing the US dearly.
Of course I think nuking Iraq would've been unconscionable, for many reasons. For the same reasons that the US chose not to do it, obviously. But pointing that out is just plain old logic.
Acting otherwise doesn't add anything to the conversation.
The US not nuking Iraq in a war of aggression is proof that "the US" places a high value on human life? It would have started WW3 and there would have been no more US. Even the worst sociopath in the world wouldn't have done it just for that reason. It's still a war of aggression, with hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered.
> If we act strategically correctly, there will be immigration and we will live in the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a situation where 2 million people live there. If there are 100-200 thousand Arabs in Gaza, all the talk about the day after will be different.
To say "we could have murdered more" and think one can be in any sort related or even adjacent to the tradition of enlightenment and human rights at the same time is preposterous.
That you say this and still come on to me with that "I share your values" stuff is just gold.