I'm sorry I neglected to reply to that bit. I guess I just don't share your perception at all? I didn't call him a nationalist and didn't flame him. I wrote, "The only place to keep Hacker News as a place for things that gratify intellectual curiosity is to keep it free of nationalistic indignation, however justified." This phrasing is deliberately general (i.e. about HN as a whole) and impersonal (e.g. "nationalistic indignation" as a genre). Not only did it not target a person, it was specifically worded not to target a person. I also recognized that the feelings behind these comments are justified, as way of making clear that (a) anyone in the commenter's place would feel the same way, but (b) HN's rules nevertheless require not posting those feelings in a way that constitutes flamebait. People on the other sides of these conflicts also have justified feelings. It's hard to remember this, but civil discourse requires that we remember it.
It's not the case that I singled 0xFFC out for harsh treatment. I was much harsher with the commenter who went on tilt in response, and I posted those replies at the same time (possibly sooner in fact, since I vaguely remember going through the thread bottom-up). Moreover, when he didn't stop, I didn't merely say "if you do this again we will ban you"; I went ahead and did ban him—a far harsher response. So I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that my reaction was unbalanced and inequitable. I certainly make mistakes and am happy to learn when people point them out, but I'm not seeing it here.
I agree with you in one way, though, and it's actually the most important thing. The way I reacted provoked a huge discussion about moderation. Any time that happens, the moderation was just wrong. (That's also why I've erred on the side of posting lots of explanation, despite its verbosity and complete offtopicness.) Therefore I need not to react that way in the future, and I will make adjustments in the hope of not provoking those sorts of objections again.
It's not always easy, though. I took heat from other side in this case too, not so visibly, but actually stronger. However much we don't want to—and we really don't want to—we end up standing in the middle of the firefight when people flame each other about things like this, and people on both sides of the conflict go away thinking we're against them, secretly hate their countries, and are in favor of their enemies. That sucks.
> I guess I just don't share your perception at all? I didn't call him a nationalist and didn't flame him. I wrote, "The only place to keep Hacker News as a place for things that gratify intellectual curiosity is to keep it free of nationalistic indignation, however justified." This phrasing is deliberately general (i.e. about HN as a whole) and impersonal (e.g. "nationalistic indignation" as a genre).
Honestly, this doesn't even pass the laugh test. Just look at what little sense this makes:
1. You said the OP was making a "swipe" at Saudi Arabia, when (a) the OP was simply using it as a reference point, and (b) literally no one else's reply to that comment took any issues with what was said about Saudi Arabia (whether in terms of accuracy, or in terms of civility/offensiveness, or anything else). And the replies about Hezbollah and whatnot were to someone else's comment entirely. But you still thought it was somehow provocative... okay, fine. Now here's the ironic part:
2. At the same time, the OP felt the need to immediately defend himself by saying "i am not nationalist" in a direct reply to your comment where you used the phrase "nationalistic indignation". This means he himself (a) felt your comments were directly targeting him, and (b) that you had accused him of being a nationalist. Someone else took it the same way too, and replied that his comment wasn't nationalistic. And now you, a moderator who seems to be trying very hard to understand things from others' perspective, are suddenly claiming that you in fact "didn't call him a nationalist", and that your statement was in fact "deliberately general (i.e. about HN as a whole)", not about the OP. In other words, he made a comment, you thought it was offensive to Saudi Arabia, no one else had an issue with it, but your view stands. Okay, fine, let's go with that. Then the opposite happened: you made a comment, which made him go into a personally defensive mode directly about what you said, someone else also defended him for the same thing, and now you're denying that you were accusing him of nationalism and that it was just some general statement about HN. I'm assuming you're writing this all with a straight face, but being completely honest with you here, it's so ironic and goes so directly against what actually happened that I'm having quite a hard time even reading it with a straight face, let alone being remotely convinced by it.
It's not the case that I singled 0xFFC out for harsh treatment. I was much harsher with the commenter who went on tilt in response, and I posted those replies at the same time (possibly sooner in fact, since I vaguely remember going through the thread bottom-up). Moreover, when he didn't stop, I didn't merely say "if you do this again we will ban you"; I went ahead and did ban him—a far harsher response. So I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that my reaction was unbalanced and inequitable. I certainly make mistakes and am happy to learn when people point them out, but I'm not seeing it here.
I agree with you in one way, though, and it's actually the most important thing. The way I reacted provoked a huge discussion about moderation. Any time that happens, the moderation was just wrong. (That's also why I've erred on the side of posting lots of explanation, despite its verbosity and complete offtopicness.) Therefore I need not to react that way in the future, and I will make adjustments in the hope of not provoking those sorts of objections again.
It's not always easy, though. I took heat from other side in this case too, not so visibly, but actually stronger. However much we don't want to—and we really don't want to—we end up standing in the middle of the firefight when people flame each other about things like this, and people on both sides of the conflict go away thinking we're against them, secretly hate their countries, and are in favor of their enemies. That sucks.