> [...] but framing it as a debate does very little to conceal the violence. Netflix platformed violence [...]
Comedic irreverence is not violence. You're only making others to not take you seriously when you say that speech can be violence. Some speech can lead to it, but it's most certainly not violence.
I'm not talking about people who don't want you to live. I'm talking about people somewhere near JK Rowling in the debate; I'm talking about the majority of people who simply don't accept all aspects of the new language relating to gender that a small but vocal minority are attempting to force on them.
I see nothing in the guidelines against calling out a lie. I don't see how any sensible rules of discussion could possibly ban that. Why are you coming after me instead of the poster I replied to who is making false accusations?
"Lie" implies intent to deceive, which is something quite other than a factual correction, and throwing "you" in there makes it an outright personal attack. That's not acceptable here.
If another comment is wrong or you feel that it is, it's enough to patiently and respectfully provide correct information. Your comment was obviously a flamewar move, and we don't want that in HN threads.
There are two paths you can take when you think someone is off-base:
1: ask questions to try and understand where they're coming from. A lot of times they're entirely on-base and can provide additional context to help understand their view even if you still don't agree. Coming from a different perspective is not the same as lying.
2: attack them, such as by calling them a liar
HN's guidelines favor the former. The latter is great TV, but doesn't lead to good discussion.
Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it.
You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of violence they're referring to doesn't make them a liar. It just means you lacked context. And now you don't.
Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal.
Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar.
In any case "they do not want me to live" is clearly a lie -- or are you going to introduce me to some new bending of language under which "they do not want me to live" does not mean "they want me to die"? Perhaps it means "they do not want me to live in the way that I want to live"? If so, as I said above, a risk of using language in such an extremely non-standard fashion is clearly that people will entirely reasonably mistake your statements for lying. Any attempt you make to tell me to do more research into what people mean by their words is just devaluing language and damaging communication: there has to be some rough consensus on semantics! That's what a language is!
That's very nearly the opposite of how HN works - it's spelled out in the guidelines and you can find dozens of moderator comments about it. There isn't really an intricate talmudic debate to be had about it.
Yes I am aware of this tactic. Take a word that is a very severe accusation like "violence" and redefine it to mean something that is so much less severe that 99.9% of people would not consider it remotely the same thing. Then accuse someone using the word, knowing very well that 99.9% of people will take it to mean a very severe accusation, and when called out on it, hide behind the alternate definition that you made up so it's "true." That is not a good faith argument, and I should not be expected to treat it as such.
> Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal.
And this is an opinion that I disagree with, but it least is stated in a way that isn't deceptive.
I disagree with your moderation here dang. The poster simply made the claim that two statements made were deliberately factually untrue (aka a "lie"). The poster did not say "You are a lier"; the attack was on the untrue statements not on a generalization about the person behind the statements. Is it simply that you would prefer the phrase "untrue statement" instead of "lie", and "you are making untrue statements" instead of "you are lying"?
"Lie" implies intent to deceive, which is something quite other than a factual correction, and throwing "you" in there makes it an outright personal attack. That's not acceptable here.
