Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulhauggis | Hacker News Reader

Please.

Nobody cares about privacy when it comes to people they don't like. Donald Sterling is a good example of this. So is the ex-Mozilla CEO. Their lives were both destroyed...yet it's justified because what they did was morally wrong and against the narrative.

Nobody even mentioned the fact that privacy was violated because the ends justified the means.

Now that you might have your privacy violated, it's a topic of discussion.

If you violate the trust of your partner and show up on this website, you deserve everything you get.

After all the recent comments and stories here on HN, I hope this happens more often, to shit in the face of all the whiny little SF hipsters that think they are somehow morally better than the rest of society.

This is actually why Trump is winning in the majority of the polls. Most people (like me) are sick of the double-speak and political correctness that is destroying the country.

The truth will set you free.

View on HN

You've been using HN primarily to post angry political rhetoric for a long time now. That's an abuse of HN, and we've asked you several times to stop. Instead, you've been breaking the rules ever more egregiously:

> to shit in the face of all the whiny little SF hipsters that think they are somehow morally better than the rest of society.

If you don't stop, we're going to ban your account. I don't want to ban you, first because you've been a legit user apart from this (though 'this' has unfortunately become dominant), second because we try not to penalize unpopular views, which some of yours are in an HN context, and third because if we do so we'll immediately be accused of "abuse of power" and "silencing", which is annoying when in reality we bend over backwards not to do that. But if you keep posting uncivil, off-topic flamebait and conducting yourself in ways that you know are not ok here, we'll have no choice. The quality of the discourse is the #1 thing we have to protect, and you're lowering it badly.

This has nothing to do with your views. For example, it would have been easy to post a comment arguing for the social beneficence of the AM leak that omitted your wish to "shit in the face" of perceived enemies, if you'd wanted to. HN is not a vent for personal rage.

Well considering that accounts can be easily faked, someone might have put your E-mail on the list. Do you then deserve "everything you get"?

Also, please don't use phrases like "nobody..." and "most people are". There is no possible way you could know what "most people are" doing so by itself that statement is a made-up statistic. Either link to (preferably a couple) articles to back up such a statement, or just say "I am". Similarly, what is "the majority of the polls"? You could at least point out a few examples of these polls so that we can tell for ourselves how accurate the statement is likely to be.

What I hope "happens more often" is that discussions will veer away from this kind of unsubstantiated I-already-know-who-I'm-voting-for commentary.

> Donald Sterling is a good example of this. So is the ex-Mozilla CEO. Their lives were both destroyed.

Brendan Eich's activities after his time as Mozilla CEO doesn't really make it seem like his life was destroyed.

> This is actually why Trump is winning in the majority of the polls.

Trump is gaining the largest minority of Republican voters among the large number of aspirants to the Republican nominee. In the head-to-head polls against Clinton, Biden, and Sanders I've seen he loses (and does so worse than a number of other Republicans, some of whom beat at least one of the Democrats in head-to-head polls.)

Right, I was not "destroyed", much as soi-disant "SJW"s may wish that I were.

The high-priority destruction question is about Mozilla, not about me. Mozilla needs a more crisp differentiated value proposition against its well-heeled competitors, on top of minimum basic competence (E10S). Threatening to break add-on compat does not help to differentiate.

While you could argue that the Mozilla controversy was about Brendan Eich's privately held beliefs, he publicly donated $1,000 to Prop 8, which was how it came to be known.

Is it possible to privately donate to political causes? Should it be?

In California, you are governed by http://www.fppc.ca.gov/legal/regs/current/18110.pdf 84211(f) -- $100.

> Is it possible to privately donate to political causes?

Its possible to privarely donate to all kinds of organizations which amount to political causes, its not possible (legally) to do so to political campaign committees, however.

You can donate to a 501c up to I believe $5000 anonymously.

You're holding Trump up as a beacon of truth?

Most of the Republican candidates pride themselves on their politically incorrect views. Trump is getting attention because he's a bloviating jackass.

What's destroying the country, really? That you can't openly hate gay and black people without being shunned by SF hipsters? Give me a break.

The two examples you mention is in regard to bigotry. If they have those views then those views are going to drive their actions.

There is no such thing as being a bigot in private.

Stupidity, anger, and brutality from "people like you" is what's destroying the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com