351–360 of 416 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: your account also looks pretty close to using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's another thing we ban accounts for, so please don't do this - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unclear to me what kind of answer you expect. It seems like you're being skeptical of the concept of news itself, except that which one has personally verified.
They're being skeptical of a report that is built on a single account of anonymous hearsay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've taken unconscious bias training. I thought it was very good. I remember catching myself in some meeting talking over a quiet woman who had probably been wanting to talk for quite a while. My brain remembered the training, I shut up, and let her participate in the meeting as an equal. Without the training, I would probably be silently making people miserable. Now I don't do that, as much. You use the word "pseudo…
> I remember catching myself in some meeting talking over a quiet woman who had probably been wanting to talk for quite a while. As a man who used to be very quiet/timid, and get talked over constantly , I'm fairly unsympathetic to this specific anecdote as having anything at all to do with bias. Quiet people get talked over. Period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: your account also looks pretty close to using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's another thing we ban accounts for, so please don't do this - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations.
No, I call out double standards and moral preening. I know you're the mod and I don't give a damn if you think it's "ideological" to expect fair play and if that's the case, fuck this site. So if you ban me, I'd presume it's based on your belief in "moral supremacy" which trumps actual, basic logic that non-college educated people can follow.
I know you're better than that, so perhaps call out that the poster that I am disagreeing with on setting a vague honeypot reeking of contempt for those who dare to talk back.
Edit: i still have a positive vote count, so democracy says I'm correct, right? Unless you decide to redefine "correct" in which case I declare you're against democracy.
For fuck's sake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience. Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence. Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.
I enjoy his strips and this post made me discover the more controversial ones, which I had missed. Thank you to the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sleight of hand would work, if only it weren't for the constantly backward-looking statements on the part of the "progressors" in your examples. The definitions are not the only thing that matter: how those who propose particular social transformation (or lack thereof) talk about those changes (particularly w.r.t. history or an imagined future) is just as important.
I see. So for example, India's government revoking Kashmir's independence and imposing demographic change on it [1] is progressive, and resisting it is conservative. Likewise, unifying China is progressive, while ethno-religious resistance by the Uyghur's is conservative. The Republicans efforts to advance from a country of immigrants, to a country of natives, is progressive, while Democrats wishing the US remains a…
If they say "We think this is a better way to move forward" and somehow manage to avoid giving the impression that they really just want to try to recreate some imagined version of the past, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was considerate of you to do that, on the other hand adults also need to learn to be assertive to succeed in social aspects of work. If you were cutting her off or not paying attention to a raised hand, sure try to change that. But otherwise you are not doing her any favors for her long term career growth, where she will have to participate in meetings with confident, knowledgeable and busy people focused on work…
Listening to the loudest voice in the room is often not the heuristic that finds the most valuable contributions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: your account also looks pretty close to using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's another thing we ban accounts for, so please don't do this - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations.
> ideological battle No, I call out double standards and moral preening. I know you're the mod and I don't give a damn if you think it's "ideological" to expect fair play and if that's the case, fuck this site. So if you ban me, I'd presume it's based on your belief in "moral supremacy" which trumps actual, basic logic that non-college educated people can follow. I know you're better than that, so perhaps call out th…
You can't judge this by upvotes alone (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). Lots of things that break the HN guidelines—like sensationalism, indignation, and political battle—routinely get plenty of upvotes. That's why we need moderation in the first place: to help jig the system out of its failure modes.
"Calling out" and the like is a really bad marker for HN comments. It's the sort of thing people do from entrenched, emotionally charged, pre-existing positions. Perhaps you're right that others are morally preening or double standarding or whatever, but going on the attack in response is definitely not the curious conversation that this site is supposed to exist for.
None of this, btw, has to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your particular views. I don't know or care what those are. This is just routine and obvious HN moderation, and would apply the same way if you were arguing for opposite things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. So for example, India's government revoking Kashmir's independence and imposing demographic change on it [1] is progressive, and resisting it is conservative. Likewise, unifying China is progressive, while ethno-religious resistance by the Uyghur's is conservative. The Republicans efforts to advance from a country of immigrants, to a country of natives, is progressive, while Democrats wishing the US remains a…
If my ideological opponents say "We want to bring back the past", I generally take them at their word. If they say "We think this is a better way to move forward" and somehow manage to avoid giving the impression that they really just want to try to recreate some imagined version of the past, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt.
Because they don't say "bring back the past wholesale" - you are twisting their words. What they say is "bring back the past in these specific cases, and not others". But a motivated listener can always find ways to misunderstand.