The article quotes several users' comments out of context. In context, some of them seem more like indirect venting rather than directly attacking fellow HNers (pwn0cakes post is the first example), which is my understanding of what PG writes in the quoted rationale on civility. Note that two paragraphs and three user quotes are written in disregard of the above.
I see how one could consider the language used in comments as hard or even offensive and insulting. I also see how one could make a justification for using such inflammatory language when responding to an equally inflammatory and one-sided article, although I do not find it excusable. Nor do I find excusable one's desire to prolong such "mean spirited" debates.
That being said, I do not find flag-able comments in general as something useful. Up- or downmodding fills the same niche. Usage of real names is also not going to happen and serves no purpose other than holding grudges. With regard to notifications about submitted stories, I don't even know how Disqus et al implement this, so I'm reluctant to comment - I had no idea a platform to allow such tracking existed.
The biggest issue I see in the examples the author showed is the fact that ad-hominem attacks against the author were upvoted furiously. The "indirect venting" by pwn0cakes did seem indirect to me at first, because my frame of reference was the same as yours seems to be (that of a fellow HNer).
But now put yourself in the author's shoes. Then suddenly you can see how direct the comment really was, calling you a "fucking asshole". Not exactly the height of discourse here on HN. Calling names is a far cry from writing a one-sided article. It was only inflammatory in that he disagreed with most people, and said people are horribly sensitive about this topic.
As mentioned in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1400882, where I'll continue replying, such comments were "upvoted furiously" because people agreed with it despite its caustic wording. Could that be because the original article provoked such a response? I believe so. Plenty of food for thought.
such comments were "upvoted furiously" because people agreed with it despite its caustic wording
I'm well aware that people upvoted it because they agreed with the sentiment. I was trying to say that this is not a good thing, and that the name-calling (not just "caustic wording" mind you, name-calling is a different beast) should have stopped any upvoting in spite of any agreement. I'm sure many on HN would disagree, since people mostly voted those comments up.
I see how one could consider the language used in comments as hard or even offensive and insulting. I also see how one could make a justification for using such inflammatory language when responding to an equally inflammatory and one-sided article, although I do not find it excusable. Nor do I find excusable one's desire to prolong such "mean spirited" debates.
That being said, I do not find flag-able comments in general as something useful. Up- or downmodding fills the same niche. Usage of real names is also not going to happen and serves no purpose other than holding grudges. With regard to notifications about submitted stories, I don't even know how Disqus et al implement this, so I'm reluctant to comment - I had no idea a platform to allow such tracking existed.