Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crockford

paulstraw.svbtle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Crockford

#71

Post by douche »

infodroid wrote: post #37

How come this story and the previous one have been penalized on HN despite the high number of upvotes? This story was published to HN only an hour ago but has gathered over 115 points, yet it has been relegated to page 2. The previous story [1] was published 14 hours ago and has over 540 points, yet is now to be found on page 4. If the algorithm was operating as usual then both stories would still be in the top half…

I'm really starting to think that flags need to be severely gimped in the front-page algorithm. Lately all the interesting stuff that generates discussion gets bounced after an hour or two, whereas relatively boring, non-controversial stuff that no one comments on remains sometimes for days on the front page.

Re: Crockford

#73

Post by sridca »

istjohn wrote: post #48
infodroid wrote: post #37

How come this story and the previous one have been penalized on HN despite the high number of upvotes? This story was published to HN only an hour ago but has gathered over 115 points, yet it has been relegated to page 2. The previous story [1] was published 14 hours ago and has over 540 points, yet is now to be found on page 4. If the algorithm was operating as usual then both stories would still be in the top half…

Would getting flagged bump it down? It's a shame people don't think this is a worthwhile conversation to be having.

How does anyone know that this happens because of flagging? What if the moderator(s) did it? Does HN have a moderation log at all?

Re: Crockford

#75

Post by sebringj »

ZoF wrote: post #68
sebringj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think Crockford is a standup guy and probably went to far with the Trump thing and the name calling but whatever. Sometimes you get passionate about a topic, it is what it is.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

cool but me taking that down was because that word itself probably is the wrong one to use, not rewriting history, i tend to agree with Lewis CK in how he says things as its not taken offensively when in context. I hope people start thinking more like him when it comes to dialog.

Re: Crockford

#76

Post by ZoF »

sebringj wrote: post #75
ZoF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

cool but me taking that down was because that word itself probably is the wrong one to use, not rewriting history, i tend to agree with Lewis CK in how he says things as its not taken offensively when in context. I hope people start thinking more like him when it comes to dialog.

Sure, I agree with him too(one of my favorites), changes nothing though.

Rewriting what you wrote isn't Rewriting history? Did you not write it? Please explain how you calling Trump a retard was the wrong word? Did you not mean it? How so?

Please believe me when I say I will follow up on this. I believe you are socially responsible for your beliefs and you clearly believe being retarded is a bad thing. Please illucidate me, is retardation bad? Would you prefer not to be retarded?

You said what you said. If Republicans can't say offensive words you can't say retard without repercussion. That's the future you're working towards, one where your intent doesn't matter, the perceived meaning does.

I personally believe we should all be able to be offensive, I think that's how natural growth occurs.

Really curious how you defend insulting the mentally handicapped though. Or was that not your intent?

Would you find yourself annoyed if people called you a bigot when you're just trying to convey honest belief?

Re: Crockford

#78

Post by [deleted] »

talideon wrote: post #63
williamgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensitive subjects seem to be effective conduits by which manipulative people can control others. What drives me to despair is that all too frequently it takes only a cursory glance at the Twitter feed of the person making the loudest complaints regarding inclusivity and diversity to find comments which compromise these values. The individual in this instance goes by @nexxylove on Twitter, and has recently retweeted…

You appear to have made a mistake in whose quotes you've tweeted: that first one isn't from @nexxylove.

[deleted]

Re: Crockford

#79

Post by williamgb »

talideon wrote: post #63
williamgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensitive subjects seem to be effective conduits by which manipulative people can control others. What drives me to despair is that all too frequently it takes only a cursory glance at the Twitter feed of the person making the loudest complaints regarding inclusivity and diversity to find comments which compromise these values. The individual in this instance goes by @nexxylove on Twitter, and has recently retweeted…

You appear to have made a mistake in whose quotes you've tweeted: that first one isn't from @nexxylove.

Sorry, should have been clear in saying that the first link was to a tweet @nexxylove had retweeted.

Re: Crockford

#80

Post by sebringj »

ZoF wrote: post #68
sebringj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think Crockford is a standup guy and probably went to far with the Trump thing and the name calling but whatever. Sometimes you get passionate about a topic, it is what it is.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

Thankfully, this threading depth only goes so far which perfectly coincides with my interest in responding.
Post reply on HN