>The role of caste within the US is a super important conversation to have, and every resident of the US is entitled to participate, but there are a lot of people with a vested interest in shutting it down and the tools to do so.
I don't believe HN's current moderation policies/leadership make this the place to have that conversation though. Participate in good faith all you want, you'll still earn a ban/warning for "arguing" if you piss off the right people.
Last time I saw a big thread related to the topic there were super deeper threads of people just straight up calling each other slurs. They probably would have been flagged, but the threads were just so deep you wouldn’t see that unless you’re intently following the thread.
>Last time I saw a big thread related to the topic there were super deeper threads of people just straight up calling each other slurs.
I hope you didn't take my comment is advocating for that. I can't really comment on a thread I didn't see.
>They probably would have been flagged, but the threads were just so deep you wouldn’t see that unless you’re intently following the thread.
Sounds like pointless name calling. That said, my original point that HN is not a good place to have these discussions stands. Unfortunately this community is for sterilized technical discussion, anything with spice or flavor isn't permitted.
It is not possible with HN's content moderation. These are deep social topics that require delving into historical truths, ones that are inappropriate for a forum that mainly discusses JavaScript frameworks.
>It is permitted, but it’s important to tread carefully
How so? You can't say what you mean here, you're forced by moderation to be dishonest and sterilize everything. Nuance is only rewarded if you're nuanced about the right side.
>is respectful of other points of view.
Again, this is not in any way consistently applied. If you disagree with the majority here no amount of nuance will save you from ban/rate limit.
Yeah, giving the power of censorship to the masses leads to the opposite of free conversation. And these particular masses do indeed like to flag anything they disagree with.
And that message, "You're replying too fast, slow down". Lol. What duplicity.
I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's a form of opinion-shaping. A huge number of people aren't particularly interested in what's true, they're interested in what's _popular_.
For argument's sake let's assume it's 80/20, with 10% on each side of a topic very passionate for their side. By banning and/or rate-limiting the 10% you dislike in any issue you can sway the 80% to follow the other side thus "manufacturing" the consensus.
I don't think there's any distinction to be made between what's "true" vs what's "popular" when it comes to online discourse unfortunately. Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug, especially when combined with votes, flagging and reports.
I don't believe HN's current moderation policies/leadership make this the place to have that conversation though. Participate in good faith all you want, you'll still earn a ban/warning for "arguing" if you piss off the right people.