121–130 of 211 posts
All these intellectual dark web people always expect a kind of empathy they themselves don't extend to others.
2. He does extend empathy to others. Have you read his writing?
3. Freddie is repentent of his sins, whereas many in the PC/woke crowd are not. There can be no real forgiveness where there is not first repentance.
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.
I'm going to rankly speculate you did this because, "I am a Hacker News and I can condemn anyone for any reason I goddamned please," while a valid counterargument, would have been a bad look.
I’ll start: I think his opinions are wrong and bad, and I sincerely doubt that the people that take issue with him do so explicitly because of what to place in 2017. This strikes me as a deliberate misdirect to enable his victimhood.
And to answer his question: “What do you want from me?”
Answer:
“Nothing. I want nothing at all from you. I want to stop hearing racist dogwhistle bullshit from big publications (even if the racist dog whistle bullshit is written by somebody that suffers from mental health issues.) My issue isn’t with you, it’s with the folks that pay you.
Will I go out of my way to undermine your career? No. I will probably not think of the Poor Abused Race Scientist ever again after today, but should I somehow come across your writings on the future, I’ll decline to read it. It’s kind of sad that you view this opinion as some sort of hate crime, but that’s not my problem.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.
> I would def settle for never having to think about it again, but clearly Freddie isn't going to "go away" like he first promised he would, so I'm sorta stuck here with that while he cashes in on self-pity.
And, if you click on the 2018 link, Harris quotes DeBoer writing
> I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. [...] I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away.
So, I mean, yes, Harris absolutely says what commitments deBoer is breaking. That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. :)
Now, there are all sorts of questions this raises about "how long of 'going away' is enough" and "is expecting permanent exile from public life reasonable." As near as I can tell, though, deBoer decided that the correct answer to "how long is enough" is "about 12 months." It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Harris to be looking at that a bit askance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.
He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say anything about what people with schizophrenia can or can't do. Please don't put quotes around things I didn't say when responding to me.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think the claims you made were quite clear. In response to the suggestion of the schizophrenia counterfactual, you wrote precisely: > 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 My understanding of that was that you saw the fact that “ clearly that he knew the accusat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever it is, we should all be able to agree that it's not "unambiguous".
If someone suffers from a psychotic episode, and you accuse him of something he does during that psychotic episode without mentioning anything about the fact that he was suffering from a psychotic episode, then that is unambiguously a lie by omission. People who suffer from psychosis do not behave in a reasonable manner. A psychosis is a medical emergency. It's like complaining that someone caused a traffic accident…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think the claims you made were quite clear. In response to the suggestion of the schizophrenia counterfactual, you wrote precisely: > 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 My understanding of that was that you saw the fact that “ clearly that he knew the accusat…
I used to get caught up by the same thing with quotation marks here. Not everyone loves the HN norm about it, but I've internalized it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
deBoer isn't schizophrenic. Again: the counterfactual proposed here isn't useful.
The psychosis that schizophrenic people experience and that of bipolar people is not treated as two separate “kinds” of psychosis by medical professionals. They are treated with exact same medications. We even have a specific disorder name for people whose mental illness includes the overlapping features of both (schizoaffective). So I don’t think you can move the goalposts away from “schizophrenic people can’t inten…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.