191–200 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not sure why you think it’s a pissing match and you’re moving the goalposts
You got all that from a single statistic? Interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of vi…
Yes I am aware of this tactic. Take a word that is a very severe accusation like "violence" and redefine it to mean something that is so much less severe that 99.9% of people would not consider it remotely the same thing. Then accuse someone using the word, knowing very well that 99.9% of people will take it to mean a very severe accusation, and when called out on it, hide behind the alternate definition that you mad…
Exactly, and this is a serious issue. Another example of this tactic is the redefinition of "antisemitism" to mean criticism of Israel. That tactic is cynical and damages efforts to prevent true anti-semitism, but it has been used very effectively by Israel, and by the entire British establishment (from the Conservative party to left-leaning media like the BBC) to damage Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> May I ask why you do this? Do you not think that others would want to discuss/debate/argue about the topic? Because unoriginal political flamebait is off-topic for this site. From the site guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Certainly this story is neither interesting nor new. It's just Sticks and Stones redux. Given…
Thanks for the response. > Because unoriginal political flamebait is off-topic for this site. From the site guidelines: Whilst I agree with you here, when the topic occurs within a tech company I think it is relevant. Basically it's very difficult to separate the tech from the politics in the current climate. > A very common sentiment I see around here and elsewhere is imagining some secret, organized sjw cabal When…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have sufficient resolution on it from people who did watch it Never trust other people's opinions on matters like this. Other people trust other people trust other people and you get mountains of wrong. Forming an opinion-based purely on other people's opinions is just a form of prejudice.
My trust is based on cancelling Netflix long ago after a string of stand-up shows full of bigoted jokes. I don't need another data point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of vi…
Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar. In any case "they do not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar. In any case "they do not…
That's very nearly the opposite of how HN works - it's spelled out in the guidelines and you can find dozens of moderator comments about it. There isn't really an intricate talmudic debate to be had about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got all that from a single statistic? Interesting.
well first you were saying there’s more outrage about trans people, and when presented with a contrary opinion you’re now singing a tune about the proportion of the outrage… come on, that’s not even what this is about
But yeah, two weeks and dozens of national news stories and demands to cancel and remove his show is probably just a few people “mad” at him for comparing trans genitalia to fake hamburger and not a living example of disproportionate outrage at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review the site guidelines and stick to them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I disagree with your moderation here dang. The poster simply made the claim that two statements made were deliberately factually untrue (aka a "lie"). The poster did not say "You are a lier"; the attack was on the untrue statements not on a generalization about the person behind the statements. Is it simply that you would prefer the phrase "untrue statement" instead of "lie", and "you are making untrue statements" in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review the site guidelines and stick to them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I see nothing in the guidelines against calling out a lie. I don't see how any sensible rules of discussion could possibly ban that. Why are you coming after me instead of the poster I replied to who is making false accusations?
If another comment is wrong or you feel that it is, it's enough to patiently and respectfully provide correct information. Your comment was obviously a flamewar move, and we don't want that in HN threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal attacks like that will get you banned on HN. Cliché flamewar comments, which this also is, aren't much better. Worse yet, you've repeatedly been posting flamewar comments to HN ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28868269 ). Would you please review the site guidelines and stop posting like that? We're trying for a (very) different kind of discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't consider any of these examples personal attacks, so I hereby agree: please do ban my account.