Tell HN: I Admire a Flame-free Online Culture
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
is the part that says, "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." I love that phrase "can be shortened to" as a gentle reminder of the right thing to do.
This post is to express the opinion that being largely flame-free is what makes Hacker News especially valuable to its participants. I'd also like to make a friendly suggestion of an extension of that principle. From time to time, persons post here articles written by or referring to controversial authors, living or dead. I've seen several references, for example, to the late Stephen Jay Gould, and multiple references to George Soros or to Michael Arrington. I have a friendly suggestion: if you disagree with Gould, or with Soros, or with Arrington, follow the example in the guideline and write, "I disagree with the factual statement made by that author, because the correct fact is . . . " I make this suggestion because, as old as I am, I already know that Gould, Soros, Arrington, and a cast of thousands are controversial in their opinions and disregarded by many. But I'd like to know the underlying facts.
Consider the radical possibility that any person you disagree with in general might accidentally make a correct factual statement in a particular case. Or consider the possibility that identifying someone as a bête noire
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bete+noire
doesn't have enough explanatory power in identifying an error in a factual statement made by the person. Or consider the factual statement that arguing ad hominem is considered a logically invalid form of argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I'm just bringing this up as praise for a job well done by the participants on the forum and as a friendly suggestion for further improvement.
5 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 19.3 ms ] threadAnother problem is, some people are just infuriating and make one lose one's sense of reason.
That's an interesting heuristic. Yeah, I suppose if I am able to stay calm and not go ad-hominem even when I see references to [insert name of my least-favored writer here], then I am truly practicing rational thinking.
A disagreement and an idea.
The disagreement: No one makes me lose my sense of reason. Let's take responsibility for our own emotions, responses, etc.
The idea: Learn to avoid responding at all, if a reasonable response is not possible.
It should be "1 + 1 is 2, not 3" instead of "I disagree with '1+1 is 3' made by that author, because the correct fact is '1+1 is 2'"