Should the HN guidelines perhaps be modified to reflect that pursuit of truth has an undocumented upper bound that shall not be breached? That way it would be more transparent what HN is about, though it would give up the powerful flexibility and illusory nature of ambiguity. Tough call!
I'm curious why you never (or rarely) seem to scold people for practicing soothsaying and other forms of pseudoscience under the guise of science & rationality.
I'm also curious if you ever wonder what good the substantial cognitive power concentrated on HN could bring to the world if we were to play our cards mildly differently.
I'll answer, but as your comment here is doing exactly what I just asked you to stop doing, I need first to tell you that these interminable cross-examination barrages are not what HN is for, and if it keeps up we're going to have to ban you. We've already had to ask you this many times. I don't want to ban you, but slack isn't infinite here either.
The answer is that HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. Does that involve being wrong sometimes? Of course it does. It would be absurd to ban people simply for being wrong. Moreover, even if we wanted to, we couldn't, because we don't know what the truth is on every question. (Some internet commenters appear to believe they know the truth about everything, but we are very far from feeling that way, and don't have a truth meter* to tell us.) Moreover, even if we did know the truth about everything, others would disagree, and trying to impose the truth on people who disagree would create a firestorm that would easily destroy the community.
The idea is in fact so obviously absurd that when people make this complaint, they can't mean it literally, and so must really be complaining about something else. Since I don't have a mind reader (or a truth meter), I don't know what the real issue is, but based on observable behaviors, it seems most likely that they want the mods to boost everything they agree with and ban everything they disagree with. Since each person has a different set of what they would like to see boosted and banned, this is impossible; we'd end up having to boost and ban everything.
Do you know that banning me is necessary, or even an improvement? Do you even care?
You happen to have landed in a position where you hold substantial power on this planet Dang, I recommend you wield that power wisely and with humility.
If you can't or won't stop posting in ways that break HN's rules and the intended spirit of the site, we're not going to have much choice. I'm happy to be patient, but 7 years is a long time.
I'm not trying to be difficult Dang, but there is more than one very legitimate issue with "as intended".
While I acknowledge my comments are upsetting to many, I do not think you are substantially taking into consideration that it takes two to tango when it comes to getting upset. And while it is often good policy to please the majority over the minority, sometimes the majority is actually incorrect.
Further, is it not also true that many others are doing, and repeatedly so (though not ~solely), things that are also upsetting, and at least arguably worse (telling untruths)? I do not deny you or others their right to their opinion, I am saying that it is often wise to realize that what one is dealing with is an opinion.
Look at all the "serious" conversations we have on this site, day after day. I do not deny that it is enjoyable, but I think it is worth considering whether maximizing enjoyment to the detriment of everything else (risk management, for example) is the way to go. You are welcome to disagree, but can we at least mutually admit that we are comparing opinions on the matter?
It's not a tough call that you can't have a conversation about truth, pseudoscience or anything else in the form of a harangue and it's supposed to be a site for conversation.
It might be a subjective opinion but if enough people have the subjective opinion you are writing harangues (which, as you can read, is the case), you get the effect of harangue-writing whether you think you are or don't. So you have to stop the harangue-like writing in order to meaningfully participate. There are a bunch of guidelines and endless moderator commentary about that.
harangue. / (həˈræŋ) / verb. to address (a person or crowd) in an angry, vehement, or forcefully persuasive way.
I don't see how this applies, especially since if anything it is other people who are engaged in persuasion, and experiencing anger or other negative emotions. I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration.
Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation?
You've been here plenty long to know it's not how HN works, everyone is responsible for their own commentary.
I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration.
I'm sure most people share that sincere belief, it's just that few enjoy, well, being harangued.
Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation?
"I don't understand what I'm supposedly doing wrong" is conversation. The above is haranguey, especially since no one is asking you to eschew speculative or subjective framing.
Do you write software for a living, or at least write scripts, deal with complexity, ambiguity, and humans?
I think both the moderator and I are trying to explain to you that you can't talk to people on HN like this because because it's not what the forum is for. That's all.
If all comments that technically violated one or more guidelines, objectively or subjectively, there wouldn't be much content left here. Luckily, we have heuristics and culture (containing norms such as do not acknowledge the existence of heuristics, at certain times) to smooth over such complexities, making everything appear logical.
Should the HN guidelines perhaps be modified to reflect that pursuit of truth has an undocumented upper bound that shall not be breached? That way it would be more transparent what HN is about, though it would give up the powerful flexibility and illusory nature of ambiguity. Tough call!
I'm curious why you never (or rarely) seem to scold people for practicing soothsaying and other forms of pseudoscience under the guise of science & rationality.
I'm also curious if you ever wonder what good the substantial cognitive power concentrated on HN could bring to the world if we were to play our cards mildly differently.