Let 4chan know what we think of them!
What 4chan thinks of HN
211–220 of 265 posts
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#212I love how anonymity engenders such honest commentary. When people aren't tied down to their reputation/ego, they are free to say what they really think.
You can be anybody on the internet. It is just sad how many people choose to be just random jerks. Somehow those people confuse nihilistic empty sarcasm with "being honest". Usually it has much more with having nothing (else) to say than with being honest.
That's the most accurate assessment I've seen so far...
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#213I have to say a lot of this stereo-typing is entirely accurate, and definitely made me have a chuckle or two.
Thanks for posting!
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#214I love how anonymity engenders such honest commentary. When people aren't tied down to their reputation/ego, they are free to say what they really think.
Is this something thats specific to 4chan? I'm not aware of any other popular anonymous boards
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#215Why again are we concerned about what 4chan thinks?
See the other top 20 posts on HN about how lack of anonymity will ruin youtube and G+ because of the not so hidden assumption that anonymous commentators result in a higher level of commentary. Talking about 4chan is a political statement.
I like 4chan because its the standup comedy of the internet. Most of what you hear you wouldn't say to your mom, both are funnier if you're a bit drunk or whatever, some level of edginess and offensiveness is not just tolerated but expected... So I like 4chan and I like HN and unsurprisingly I like the intersection quite a bit. And I'm hardly alone. I subjectively think the overlap in the Venn diagram is huge, perhaps approaching majority.
Finally, in isolation from the obvious social and political issues, its a hilarious parody.
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#216How could they have left out the patronizing irrelevant [0] links [1] to Wikipedia [2] in all the wannabe-academic [3] comments with references[4]? (and yes, references must be 0-based [5]) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_locator [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation [5…
Parodies are usually funny because they're true. The citations in HN comments are some of the most valuable contributions to the site. This whole post is depressing. Far from lighthearted fun, these comments all have an undercurrent of hostility ("wannabe-academic"). The mosaic formed by these comments imply pg has harmed the world by creating HN. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Imagine where you'd be fo…
A wikipedia link is not a citation.
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#217How could they have left out the patronizing irrelevant [0] links [1] to Wikipedia [2] in all the wannabe-academic [3] comments with references[4]? (and yes, references must be 0-based [5]) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_locator [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation [5…
Are you seriously complaining that too many people are citing their sources?
Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#218This one is my favourite -"Things I've learned from coding for a month" -"Ten ways to become a better programmer" - by the guy who's been coding for a month
This. These kinds of posts always make me roll my eyes. Frequently they get hundreds of upvotes. Makes me wonder about the quality of submissions from the fields I understand much less (sciences, humanities, politics, etc.).
Don't be silly - computer programmers are experts in every field due to Google and Wikipedia, so certainly the science and humanities posts must be of top quality.
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#219How could they have left out the patronizing irrelevant [0] links [1] to Wikipedia [2] in all the wannabe-academic [3] comments with references[4]? (and yes, references must be 0-based [5]) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_locator [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation [5…
I have never seen those links as patronizing, they are often useful and the reason they use what you call "wannabe-academic" formatting is because it is impossible to post inline links without killing readability. This is what people usually do in mailing lists too
Re: What 4chan thinks of HN
#220I'm actually really surprised they seem to think that the HN community is anti-sexist. Compared to 4chan, maybe, but from my experience it isn't at all.
(I'm assuming you're using "anti-sexist" to mean "feminist" rather than its literal definition.) A little over a year ago, there was a lot of third-wave feminist activism here after several "Atheism Plus" communities mentioned Hacker News. Gradually, people started standing up to them, and their activism is not nearly as prominent. On a side note: If you're curious about "Atheism Plus", it's a set of communities that…
Yeah, I'm actually surprised feminists aren't more unpopular at times, because they do this with essentially anything resembling activism that isn't feminism: they go in and insist that members of that group focus on their form of feminism to the exclusion of whatever the group's actually about. (Often making use of the fact they have far more contacts and influence in the media to portray any dissent as women-hating and abominable.)
Same's been happening with Russel Brand and opposition to the current political system here in the UK.