Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP.

Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald Mosley.



I did editorialize on #9 because I wanted to draw attention to it and get some discussion. My feeling is that her take is not entirely healthy.


It's more than healthy; it's mandatory.

In the Internet, we have built an unlimited stream of information. You could quit your job and do nothing but post and reply full-time, and you'd never get near being able to respond to every commenter if everyone who read what you wrote chose to comment.

Filtering signal from noise is a vital skill in the online era. And sure, if your filter is over-tight you'll end up in an echo chamber... But as there's no penalty for being wrong on the Internet, a healthy filter is downsampling a lot of information these days.


OK I see. Well, my input is that it goes beyond editorialisation to misrepresentation for the reasons I outline above! Imo enforcing appropriate boundaries is good for one's mental health and relationships. And I think the boundary she describes - ignoring tangential, agenda-driven comments - is absolutely appropriate.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: