Schoolgirls who defied the Stasi

Well, you first accuse me on following you on HN and treating you this or that way repeatedly. And when I tell you I don't keep tabs, and I seldom know who is who I'm answering to (I'm just answering when I think some comment warrants an answer), you write the above that implies that you, instead, keep tabs on me and "how I behave generally on HN" (and, logically, on others too).

To me that's akin to stalking.

I'm not here talking with my friends or expecting long term camaraderie and rivalries, and going into who said what when. I'm on an open online forum with hundreds of users. Each new post is to me a new discussion, not a picking up from where we left, with animosities etc on what someone said.

>If you aren't going to pay any attention whatsoever to social details, such as whether or not you have ever spoken to this particular person before, it's generally a best practice to refrain from any kind of personal commentary at all concerning their behavior.

Well, I don't feel I offered personal commentary. I wrote a generic commentary on what you wrote to the grandparent, that can apply to anyone:

"Making a point in a discussion is not about the personal circumstances of the one we're talking to. Doubly so if they're an outlier, and triply so if we don't know their circumstances to begin with, because the discussion happens in an online forum."

>Behavior is influenced by context and you are making no effort whatsoever to understand context at all, so your opinions about such things are going to tend to be uninformed opinions that go bad places.

Sorry, the context here is technical, hacker-oriented discussion, and being informed (as in "informed opinions") rests on the technical, historical, etc knowledge of the issue in each TFA.

It's not about social subtleties, who is who, who said what in some earlier thread, etc. This is not Livejournal.

> You are projecting your personal framing of a particular problem space onto all other people and then further framing it as some kind of objective and irrefutable truth.

You're already projecting, already assuming, already attempting to paint me negatively before even beginning the discussion. This leads me to believe you must partially be projecting when you tell others they don't know you. Because here you are doing the same exact thing!

> I spent a lot of time in therapy, so I don't suffer a lot of existential guilt. I've generally walked the walk on things I believe in, so I don't have a lot of guilt of the type you are describing.

And with the second sentence, we've already made this a conversation about you. What follows, surely, will be a large personal anecdote, which the act of dissecting would cause you to claim that I am personally attacking you or silencing you. And remember: You approached me first.

How is engaging in conversation this way either constructive or relevant?

> My last boyfriend spent three years in prison in his youth for his political activism. He also was trying to talk me into illegal activities that would have benefitted him and not particularly endangered him. He tried to justify this with reasoning similar to yours.

You very unsubtly just projected your boyfriend onto me. I'm not your ex-boyfriend, honey. I am not trying to talk you into committing crimes for my benefit.

All of the issues I listed revolved around human rights. If you think those issues aren't important, that's your own issue that you need to work out, but don't compare them to whatever ideology your ex-boyfriend supposedly espoused. That is just not relevant.

> ut perhaps an anecdote will have a modicum of value.

Perhaps not. This is typically the case.

> A lot of homeless people break the law regularly as a matter of course merely to survive or merely by existing. I no doubt was breaking the law every single night by sleeping someplace I wasn't supposed to be.

Yes. This is an extension of my last post. The government has created criminality out of necessity.

> But I didn't use that as an excuse to justify doing any damn thing I wanted and to hell with the law.

You're strawmanning my original discussion now. I never made such a ridiculous assertion. I only listed a set of legal concepts which revolve around human rights. You are now deliberately coloring this discussion, and since we're no longer talking about my original post, I will stop reading your post any further.

You need to kick this dopamine feedback loop where you get off on being victimized. You're derailing discussions and attacking people like me under the veil of being attacked yourself.

> If you worked on your framing, you might find that we agree on a lot of things.

Yeah, if I just thought the way you did and framed everything the way you did, we most certainly would agree! I thank the heavens this is not the case and that I do not frame online discussions in the same manner as yourself.

I'm not your ex-boyfriend, honey.

Also, don't call me honey. You aren't my ex boyfriend, nor my future boyfriend. That's both overly personal and generally dismissive.

I'm done talking to you. None of this is remotely good faith engagement.