I'l agree that HN isn't the best place to debate it. But if we all agree on that, why does it seem so one-sided on here? Flame-bait assertions that Israel has what the Nazis could only dream about are just fine and highly upvoted, as are vague and unjustified claims that Israel's response is heavy-handed. Meanwhile, just pointing out that the conflict is more complex than that and Israel has reasons for what they're doing too is apparently considered unacceptable off-topic debate. Is this place a Hamas propaganda site or something?
Keeping out of the debate entirely is fine, but if we're doing that, let's downvote and reject posts like the ones in this thread by yamayb and jdimov that are packed with inflammatory rhetoric that has nothing to do with the original topic here.
Whether or not I disagree with it is irrelevant - HN isn't the place for unsubtle attempts to shift the tone of online conversation in one political entity's favor. I would probably object if a guy posted a submission and commented on several other submissions with links to some websites that claimed the Isrealies were all evil and hated Palestinians or whatever. Keep it to /r/politics.
But given the number (and impact) of pro-IDF groups whose explicit goal is to control the online Israel-Palestine debate through propaganda, stuff like this is particularly tiring. Every time conflict breaks out a bunch of kids start spamming unrelated forums with their crap.
Edit: Note that I'm not claiming the other side is innocent of this behavior, it may just be that I notice the Israeli stuff more/hang out on forums more prone to being exposed to them.
I disagree. I've always found HN to be a great place to discuss things like this. In fact, HN sometimes feels like one of the only places I can discuss things like this without being downvoted to hell and back.
HN is one of the few places where informed discussion is actually possible and even opposing views (as long as they are objective and well reasoned) are adding to the discussion (and often upvoted). Shutting that off just because of some unfounded downvotes or trolling in times where such discussions are extremely important is cowardly and a very sad move in my opinion. HN is better (and more important) than you think.
What is the point of allowing discussion? HN would not allow a post on this topic from an opposing viewpoint to get to the front page. Moreover, this particular point of view is from a radical organization - you can't really have intellectual discourse with people who refuse to see any other position than theirs.
Yeah, I’ve been here a few months only and there is a very different attitude than on better-known websites like Reddit. HN is the only forum I’ve seen where anyone who argues in obviously bad faith will get downvoted to invisibility, and most well-made arguments get upvoted, no matter which side they’re on.
A few years ago, trying to have the same conversations on reddit, everything degraded into personal attacks eventually.
Because these threads are dominated by cartoonish, angry yelling which contains zero intellectual curiosity and therefore is thoroughly off topic. The commenters inundating the threads on these topics are plainly posting out of nationalistic and ideological zeal. That's not what HN is for.
HN isn't an ideological battleground. In general, it's for whatever gratifies intellectual curiosity. The flagged comments may have contributed information, but most of them share a common trait: they're incendiary.
The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. It's not easy to do. People are generally passionate about their points of view, and I've been guilty of this myself. But the ideal is worth striving for.
In particular, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules. I did this the other day and regretted it; it unfairly catapulted my comment to the top of the thread due to the overcorrection, and by then it was too late to edit. It's better to let a comment stand or fall on its own merits, as difficult as that is.
I agree with him partly, and another user has voiced the same concern, albeit in an abrasive manner. It's still the best place to have a debate though.
There are some topics that are very predictable, some of them are noticeably left issues, some things more loosely connected. Crypto, Tesla, Brave, Facebook, Israel, etc. are all subjects you'll most likely get heavily downvoted and probably flagged if you don't view the common (to here) opinion.
HN is not immune to group think and talking points get parroted here often, dissenting views flagged and downvoted. But not always, it's definitely nowhere near Reddit bad.
Like I said at the top, it's the best place on the internet to have a discussion, but not perfect, and seemingly getting a worse slowly, the way it always seems to go.
A noble sentiment but I found that nothing polarises opinion quite as much as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Technology aside, it's a terribly sad situation with no easy solution in sight.
...and to play devil's advocate: if I'd chose a place to have a "political" discussion, I guess HN would be the place, since the level of debate is a cut above the rest, and the comments often well informed and eloquent.
I'm normally one who will defend HN as being a haven for calm, rational disagreement, but these Supreme Court ruling discussions are really bad.
Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads.
You will be downvoted for speaking your mind, but well said. Hn doesn't claim to be free speech forum which is quite unfortunate, as most of the discussion here is usually academic.
Edit: Just noticed a downvote. If anyone disagrees with this observation, I'm interested in hearing your feedback. One of the things I appreciate about HN is that it's one of the few places on the Internet were people with differing opinions can have truly productive and enlightening debates.
Here's what usually happens at this point in a politically-charged HN thread: I ask a question along the lines of, "Why are you so interested in defending an indefensible aspect of an indefensible war on an abstract noun?", and then I get a nasty note from the admins warning against personal attacks, even though none was intended.
So we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I suspect we're coming from two very different places.
No, it's a symptom of HN not being a place for ideological battle. Users flag such posts, presumably for that reason.
If you want a site dedicated to this sort of disputation, there are other places to find that, and room for new forums as well.
There's a class of users who only want to fight these same fights over and over again, they're a minority, they're not using HN in its intended spirit, and they shouldn't have the ability to fundamentally alter it for the users who do.
That's a big issue. HN has no special insight on politics so the discussions turn into the same old canards and groupthink on Reddit or anywhere else. There's just very little informative or useful about those discussions.
It's pretty often that stuff which is factually wrong but meets emotional needs gets upvoted without a second thought. Disagreement with the notion the world is ending or Trump is literally James Harden and is gonna start the Holocaust (a popular feeling at HN 4 months ago) gets swiftly downvoted because it doesn't meet how people feel.
Every time one of those groupthinky discussions happens it makes HN less attractive to informed discussion.
I'm sitting at -12 in a thread from yesterday in which a guy responded "No offence you don't seem to have much knowledge of post ww2 history" after he was the one who made a weird historical analogy and I more or less copypastad part of a wiki article on the issue. I don't really care about being wrong or losing Internet points, but when stuff like that happens it just convinces me that even really intelligent people would rather agree with their biases over actually debating something. No thanks. It's the kind of behavior expected on r/politics.
> My belief is that there's a grey zone where considered discussion of the pros and cons is okay, even good.
Considered discussion is welcome on HN. Unfortunately there are some topics where considered discussion is unlikely. Abortion; circumcision; Israel / Palestine; gun control; etc etc. It'd be fantastic if there was a site like HN where these topics could be discussed, especially if that site fostered calm rational discussion.
But these discussions too often deteriorate into noise, and worse into wider ranging down-voting and derailments in other threads.
Keeping out of the debate entirely is fine, but if we're doing that, let's downvote and reject posts like the ones in this thread by yamayb and jdimov that are packed with inflammatory rhetoric that has nothing to do with the original topic here.
reply