As it happens, it is also the rare story on the subject that plays exactly to the opinion that the HN community already holds; namely that it is more effective to engage even the most vile theories in measured debate, and that any attempt to reduce the publicity that, for example, racists get will only make their ideology spread faster.
The irony being that sometimes people opposing that theory are to be found at the bottom of the threat, flagged and dead. But I'm assuming that to be the work of people agreeing with them, trying to empower them.
Meanwhile, a writer as mainstream as Ta-Nehisi Coates (https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi-coates/) can write all the #1 bestsellers he likes on the subject, but is considered to be "flamebait" here.
Well there's some truth to that, but I don't agree with how you interpret it. Unfortunately the question gets so complicated so quickly that I don't know how to write about it in an internet comment. So I'll respond with some things I do know how to say.
People see X they don't like and conclude that "the community endorses X". Advanced version: "the moderators endorse X". This is not how HN works—the opposite of X is here too, it just doesn't get noticed the same way (people notice most what they dislike the most). Since X varies with the observer, this isn't specific to any political view.
You wrote your comment in the combative style that is popular on the internet. From past exchanges, I'm pretty sure you have HN's best interests at heart as well as wanting there to be more good in the world. No argument there! The trouble with the combative style is not that the community (or moderators) disagree with the content ideologically. It's that in this style one comes out swinging and assumes bad faith, and that's bad for good conversation, which is really all we're hoping for.
Ideological combat insta-sorts the world into enemies vs. fellows and goes to war against the former. Indeed that's all it does—it's always on a war footing, and we all know how it has been taking over online. We're (hopelessly?) hoping to avoid that on HN. Is that because we hold regressive views about race or are milquetoast centrists? No, it's just that we'd like to have an internet forum that isn't dumb, which is what scorched earth leads to.
HN's goal is to be interesting, which means being unpredictable, which means not saying the same things over and over. Ideological battle has a different goal and requires saying the same things over and over. That is why the two are incompatible; it's not because HN promotes ideology not-X where you favor X.
I'm sure we could do better and if you know how, I'd love to learn. But we need to agree that HN's goal is to gratify intellectual curiosity [2]. I think it's fair for there to be different forums that optimize for different goals, don't you? That's this one's.
I'd like add evidence to your point that hn has multiple viewpoints. I am pretty close to the communist/socialist side of politics and find many people here who agree with me. I also find people like 'yummyfajitas who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and while he makes posts that make my blood boil they are well reasoned enough that I've upvoted him more often than not
Everything I have personally witnessed would categorically reinforce the idea that dialogue is productive and that lack of dialogue and data is precisely what breeds hate, distrust, and misunderstanding.
I have yet to witness a person who was shouted down and denounced say "gee, that sure changed my mind about the issues". People don't work that way.
I have been. I have to admit, it took a while, though. I've said some pretty sexist stuff in the past, and racist, and so on. I don't know if that's the best way to change minds though, but enough people telling me, "Hey, [that thing you said] is kind of sexist" changed my mind.
I would hypothesize that many people are likely to reexamine their beliefs when regularly surrounded (IRL) by people who disagree. We're social animals; we seek harmony with our neighbors, to an extent.
I think Daryl Davis' achievement is changing the opinions of people who are surrounded by supporters. That's much trickier, and killing-with-kindness seems like the likeliest approach there.
i'm curious - was that always the extent of the conversation, or was there ever a 'it's sexist because ... ' part that engaged your reason and changed your mind?
To be honest, the backfire effect played a dominant role and I don't think I was persuaded by that particular instance or any that followed. It was that things I said were called out as sexist many times, and years later I started to realize that I shouldn't be offended when that term is used, and I should be more receptive to people who feel the need to use it.
Where was Coates considered flamebait on HN? Can you provide a link? I'm an admirer of his. I see a submission of "The First White President" (which is amazing); it isn't flagged and has no comments, and looks like an ordinary victim of HN front-page roulette.
I find it deeply, deeply ironic that you speak out against open discussion of "vile theories" in one breath and then, in the very next, object to HN's readership demonstrating to you in the most direct way possible what the consequences of your own position against that kind of open discussion would be.
Ad-hominem attacks on a group of people (eg; the HN community) are not always received well by that group of people :-) It's important to make arguments in a way that your audience will be receptive to if you're interested in convincing others.
An alternative phrasing of your comment, which would conform to the HN norms you describe of measured debate, might go...
> This article takes the stance that it is effective to engage even the most vile theories in measured debate. This seems to be an HN norm as well. I actually disagree with that in special cases like racism. Here are some reasons why...
> I'm also concerned that other articles, like this[link] by award-winning author Ta-Nehisi Coates, got flagged. (elaboration...)
The irony being that sometimes people opposing that theory are to be found at the bottom of the threat, flagged and dead. But I'm assuming that to be the work of people agreeing with them, trying to empower them.
Meanwhile, a writer as mainstream as Ta-Nehisi Coates (https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi-coates/) can write all the #1 bestsellers he likes on the subject, but is considered to be "flamebait" here.