I think you misinterpreted his statement. "Cut off your nose to spite your face" is referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_...

In this context, they're referring to the actions of NY (not the comment they're replying to), and TBH, there's nothing personally acidic; it's just a saying.

I was referring to feel free to pat yourself on the back for not "falling for it", which was a gratuitous bit of personal sarcasm, just the sort of thing which acidifies online discourse. Also, arguably, the bit about an attempt to revise history is an uncharitable escalation (though not personal).

I think you're reading too much into that phrase. It's a bit condescending but I don't see how it erodes the discussion.

It erodes discussion by slowly acidifying it. It's not that the remark was so bad in itself—it's that these effects compound, and if we allow them to compound very much, the problem will no longer be fixable. That's why we often ask people not to do this, even when they only did it a little.

enough people have chimed in response to you to say this is legitimate discourse within the HN rules.

I agree with Dan, and I wouldn't have commented had I not read this comment. It's easy to underestimate the happy-but-silent majority.

Dan was spot on when saying that this acidity compounds. It leads to a vicious circle of increasingly hostile comments unless someone decides to be the bigger person and break the chain. Having a neutral third party step in to play this role (i.e. a moderator) makes this chain-breaking far more likely and works to all of our benefit.

People are more likely to comment when they disagree, so that's not surprising. The votes show the opposite, though both votes and comments are mixed.

Moderators have to make these calls. From my perspective this is no different from what we've done thousands of times.

I don't see votes as useful signal on Hacker News: for example, during the course of some comments I make, the vote starts out as very negative (from people who skim the comment and think it's insulting) to very positive (from people who read it more carefully and realize it's insightful). So there is a temporal aspect to votes (I'm sure you know more about this than me).A

And often when I get votes, there's no signal whether it's due to tone, or content, or whether it's because I'm expressing something that is true, but makes people feel sad (seems to happen a lot, makes no sense to me).

...there is nothing personal or acidic in this post?

You don't think

> feel free to pat yourself on the back for not "falling for it"

is condescending?

Because to me it sounds super condescending, flippant, and dismissive.

It's about as mildly condescending as anything can be. I'm all for civil discourse, but there comes a point where we're just sanitizing it.

I don't think any of us would say that to a stranger in real life without expecting to cause great offense.

I would, but then I'm the only one that knows the tone it was said in (at least in my head), which wasn't condescending, but more bemused sarcasm.

And that's the fundamental issue with moderating rhetorical devices. You're assuming you know how the other person intended to say something.

Moderating personal attacks is easy. Because that's not a rhetorical device and it's intent is quite clear.