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

I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 211 posts

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#61

Post by Veen »

weeblewobble wrote: post #37

For context, here's Freddie's contemporaneous apology, which he has not only deleted from his website but from the Wayback Machine as well (sorry for the weird site, only copy I could find): https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-5950.pdf Some excerpts: "Crucially, despite my mental state at the time, I knew when I sent those tweets that they were untrue. I am responsible for having made those false allegations…

> Would be nice if Freddie and his IDW friends

You're wide of the mark there. De Boer was never part of the IDW. He might criticize some of the things they do, but he's coming from a different starting point entirely.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#62

Post by dahfizz »

irishloop wrote: post #53
treebot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a pessimistic outlook. You can find inner peace even though you're being harassed.

I don't know, if you hear about the accounts of the parents of children killed in Sandy Hook, I don't think inner peace was available. Many had to move or go into hiding. Imagine, after losing a child in such a horrific way, that you also need to somehow start an entirely new life in a strange place because strangers think you're a crisis actor and threaten your life. Externalities matter.

Nobody is arguing that externalities don't matter. You have to respond to events that happen in your life.

Inner peace is whether those families can come to terms with what happened and be happy, or whether they will live in emotional turmoil forever.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#63

Post by watwut »

weeblewobble wrote: post #37

For context, here's Freddie's contemporaneous apology, which he has not only deleted from his website but from the Wayback Machine as well (sorry for the weird site, only copy I could find): https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-5950.pdf Some excerpts: "Crucially, despite my mental state at the time, I knew when I sent those tweets that they were untrue. I am responsible for having made those false allegations…

And here is Malcolm Harris now - he retweeted that recently.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096...

He is not appreciating what DeBoer does now and don't think he follows amends he promised.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#64

Post by Veen »

rhizome wrote: post #47
spadros wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bipolar is a tragic disease. It's something that's pretty rampant in my family. You eventually get to a point that the author is. You can't excuse your behavior, but you want people to know desperately that those actions aren't the normal you. There's an acceptance that people will cut you off from their lives, and that's fair. Hurts but its the way it is.

Freddie doesn't have to be a public figure. He could become a web developer and go by his middle name and quietly cruise out the rest of his years like the drummer for Flock of Seagulls or something.

He could, but it would be a shame. He's an excellent writer. I am well to his right politically, but I've followed him for years because I enjoy reading his work and find his analysis a valuable counterpoint to stuff I would more normally read.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#65

Post by tptacek »

scythe wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #11

It is not, in fact, "unambiguously a lie" to relate to others deBoer's grave (and admitted, and unambiguously real) misconduct without the full context of his mental illness. People are entitled to form their own opinions about deBoer's credibility, and he is not entitled to set conditions on how they do that.

A lie is intentional. Regardless of the falsehood, it is not a lie if you believe it when you say it. But it is certainly misleading to make these claims about deBoer's actions without context. If this is intentional, then it is intentionally misleading. I wonder if there's a word for that.

Whatever it is, we should all be able to agree that it's not "unambiguous".

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#66

Post by johncolanduoni »

tptacek wrote: post #59
spadros wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that any description of his misconduct not including reference to his literal bipolar manic state to be not painting the true picture. If we swapped “bipolar” for “schizophrenic” would you have the same opinion?

I don't have to consider that counterfactual, since deBoer himself stated clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them.

I think you’re woefully uninformed about the nature of psychosis. Schizophrenic people are fully capable of telling intentional lies to combat a perceived threat, even when they are imagining that threat due to psychosis. Even for someone schizophrenic, not all psychosis is so dissociative as to not have a goal-oriented thought process at all.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#67

Post by KittenInABox »

smoldesu wrote: post #26
pezzana wrote: post #7

> But in fact I had not intended to cancel Harris; I hadn’t intended anything at all. I would have attacked him, physically, had he been present, over a pure delusion, which I say with shame I can’t put into words. But I was not thinking that I would hurt his reputation. I was not thinking of cause and effect in any conventional way. I was not in a mental state where I was capable of understanding long-term consequen…

The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. This greatly favors capitalism, which can perform native marketing on Twitter with brand accounts and hired reply-guys, as well as through advertisements and other methods of attention diversion. The final incarnation of this is platforms like Tik-Tok, which behave as perpetu…

> The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't.

Is this truly the case, or is it that there we less average people in online communities in the past? Online scams, lying, and deceit have been a thing since online was a thing-- why else would we have nigerian prince, rickrolling, or the term "trolling" otherwise?

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#69

Post by KittenInABox »

kempbellt wrote: post #56
worik wrote: post #33

> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation". We can be better to each other. When we do not deserve it is when we need it the most. Peace, love, respect foster peace, love and respect. "Total condemnation" might make the condemner have some temporary good feelings, but does no good for…

> This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation". Which, ironically feels more like a bipolar approach to resolving a problem. Are they good , or are they bad ? Is it legal , or is it illegal ? Are they right , or are they wrong ? Do we punish , or do we praise ? There seems to be this strange generalized assumption that people are bipolar, and they are the problem. Completely ignoring t…

I don't think this is an accurate depiction of bipolar. This is more accurate to the term "splitting" or black/white thinking which is more common in personality disorders.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#70

Post by tehjoker »

DeBoer doesn't actually state what criticism he's responding to, implying that all of it is attacking him for his previous shitty behavior (with mitigating circumstances, but ironic given his position against cancel culture) and just hating success. However, the only reason the NYT published him is because they're anti-communist and his piece is basically "here's why socialism is unpopular with americans" posing as being on the side of the left without offering any useful adjustments or acknowledging the popularity of numerous issues such as medicare for all in opinion polling.
Post reply on HN