I would like closure, but I'll take honesty • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by watwut » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #188

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked Twitter thread includes Harris saying, > 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 gene…

It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part. It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable. Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it. If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.

That is what DeBoer promised back when he felt guilty and did not wanted Harris to sue him. Which he in fact could do. And maybe should do.

Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.

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

#192

Post by zepto » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #191

zepto wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part. It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable. Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it. If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.

That is what DeBoer promised back when he felt guilty and did not wanted Harris to sue him. Which he in fact could do. And maybe should do. Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.

DeBoer says he’s bringing the Harris thing up because other people keep using it to attack him.

He can’t control what other people do, and if they keep bringing it up, it’s not unreasonable for him to respond.

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

#193

Post by JamesBarney » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

newbie789 wrote: post #134

JamesBarney wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 don't know what conditions he's set, he's just asking people to include context. Context which completely changes how most people would view that incident. Maybe "unambiguously a lie" is a too strong and you can't tell a lie by taking an action out of context, but if you can thi…

His position is that “If you don’t support my extensive writing about race science, you’re a bigot and a liar because of an incident unrelated to my extensive writing about race science, which has singularly made me a victim of the mob - not my actual writing or opinions. Any criticism of me personally is by definition predicated on the thing I said in 2017 and not my body of work since then.” That’s the condition th…

You put quotes around that, but I read the article and searched through the article and he never wrote that.

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

#194

Post by mleonhard » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #157

podgaj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have two be careful (I have Schiozoaffective Bipolar Disorder) when going on to social media. I cannot use Facebook at all. For some reason it is always a huge trigger for me. On Twitter I go back and forth. Even Hacker News frustrates me when they keep telling me I am "posting too fast". Most times nothing is too fast for me. :) But in total, I would say some social media platforms are worse than others. I long f…

Your account has been rate limited. At some point, you did something wrong, and noone in administration could even be bothered to warn or tell you about it. That cryptic error message is what gets shown to you instead of anything descriptive. The only way to get it lifted is to email them and pinky promise never again to do the thing they didn't tell you you did in the first place. See this thread: https://news.ycomb…

In that thread, you wrote:

> I'll write something, it will accumulate a couple to several upvotes, and then, those upvotes all go away over the course of a few more hours, sometimes to be replaced by net downvotes.

Maybe your initial upvotes come from one type of user and the later downvotes come from another type?

Starting about six months ago, I noticed that a lot of low-quality comments were getting voted up on HN. I feel disappointed. Previously, I would spend my downvotes on comments that tried to contribute but contained some error of analysis or logic. I would add a reply explaining the problem, or upvote an existing reply that did that. Nowadays, I spend my downvotes on comments that are low-effort: jokes, opinions with no explanation, knee-jerk reactions, ignorant positions, baseless assumptions, and emotional appeals. I dislike reading those kinds of comments.

I looked over some of your recent comments. I think some of them are low-effort. Example:

> Whoever thought not fixing a remote code execution bug just so they could use it to do something as trivial as tell the difference between their client and others should have been fired.

I think you're initially getting upvoted by people who are OK with low-effort comments. These folks spend a lot of time on HN and refresh to see new comments. They vote up your comment because they like reading comments. Then later, busier people read the story and downvote the low-effort comments. I think this is why you're getting initially upvoted and then downvoted.

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

#195

Post by zepto » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #165

zepto wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is DeBoer ‘making himself the victim’? It looks to me as though he is a victim of a bunch of social vigilantes who have nothing to do with the original situation. The ‘original victim’ would be better off if these vigilantes weren’t involving themselves in the situation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096... This is what "original victim" retweeted again, like yesterday. > who have nothing to do with the original situation. Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.

>> who have nothing to do with the original situation.

> Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.

What did I make up? Are you connected to the original situation? If so, please explain your connection. If you are an interested party in this, it would be honest for you to explain that now.

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

#196

Post by gopher_space » Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC

AlanYx wrote: post #183

gopher_space wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you hit me up with your favorite examples? I'm just hearing about the guy now and the first article of his that I found was kind of a pseudosciencey wall-o-text that I won't be finishing.

He's pretty passionate about education policy; this article is one of his better ones on that topic, IMHO: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-... The discussion of Robertson et. al.'s 2010 paper is worth reading the article just for that. But it's true that his writing seems to drift between extremes -- some sober, well-researched and very interesting, and others almost as if a different pers…

> But it's true that his writing seems to drift between extremes -- some sober, well-researched and very interesting, and others almost as if a different person was writing it.

The article you linked is bizarre. He's actually arguing against himself in places. Interesting, and thanks for the link.

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

#197

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 12:54 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #190

hitekker wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deboer deleted his apology from the internet and then wrote this mealy mouthed drek of an article indicates that he hasn’t lived up to his commitment to move on. He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.

> He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves. Believing you can read someone else’s mind is a diagnostic criterion for psychosis.

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by newbie789 » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 12:59 AM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #193

newbie789 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His position is that “If you don’t support my extensive writing about race science, you’re a bigot and a liar because of an incident unrelated to my extensive writing about race science, which has singularly made me a victim of the mob - not my actual writing or opinions. Any criticism of me personally is by definition predicated on the thing I said in 2017 and not my body of work since then.” That’s the condition th…

You put quotes around that, but I read the article and searched through the article and he never wrote that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase

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

#199

Post by chipotle_coyote » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 1:00 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #188

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked Twitter thread includes Harris saying, > 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 gene…

It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part. It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable. Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it. If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.

>> That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part.

> It's absolutely a failure on Harris's part.

Let me be clearer: Harris stated exactly what you said he didn't state. You either failed to click the link or dismissed it. That you do not agree with what Harris said does not mean he didn't say it.

> If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.

It's obvious he thinks that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, even if he didn't use those literal words. You're implicitly criticizing Harris for an ungenerous reading of deBoer's commitment ("obviously it's absurd and unreasonable to expect he really meant 'permanently' when he wrote 'permanently'"), which I don't object to -- but I do object to you not in turn extending the same generosity to Harris.

For whatever it's worth, I doubt "permanent exile" is reasonable, either. But barely a year later deBoer was writing for the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing a best-selling book, and starting a newsletter that now brings in a six-figure income. Barely two years on and deBoer is writing, in so many words, "I've already apologized, why won't all you cancel-culture jerks leave me alone".

So, yeah, sorry: if I was Harris, I would probably be tempted to make a few tweets questioning just how sincere deBoer was about the whole apology thing.

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

#200

Post by newbie789 » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 3:04 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #168

newbie789 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. What? He publicly holds very polarizing (and ridiculous) views on issues that directly affect people’s day to day lives, but I’m not thinking straight because I don’t immediately buy the idea that he’s _just_ being bullied for other reasons ? Maybe folks that he victimized during his psychotic break could also hate him for his opinions, but that’s not really a possibility that he mentions. The tone of good arti…

> This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be. Did we read the same post? I see someone acknowledging that there are real and valid reasons to dislike him. The main thrust is a request for accuracy when spreading information about those reasons.

Ah yes, the hallmark of somebody acknowledging wrongdoing: saying that criticism of him is “unambiguous lies”