Looking at the facts: Sarah Sharp’s crusade | Hacker News Reader

Looking at the facts: Sarah Sharp’s crusade

preining.info

14 pointsVorcin848 comments

Open articleView on HN

And this is why some people shouldn't even have flagging rights I think.

Now this story is off the front page and lost for the majority of the audience here.

Seems hugged to death already, sorry.

Wayback machine link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20151008102734/http://www.preinin...

"Social Justice Warrior"

Really? That's the level of discourse the author is gonna set the bar at? At least I know that I'm not missing any substance by having just skimmed the post.

Seems like a cheap scramble for pageviews with an incredibly biased article, starting with the title.

Loaded language is extremely common, and you doubtlessly use plenty of snarl words without even realizing it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Snarl_word#Snarl_words

Though, much of a word's snarl comes from its tone and context. Where SJW is indeed a pejorative, it should not be construed as an intrinsic thought-terminating cliche. It's merely a shorthand to describe a certain flavor of people subscribing to academic ideologies that interpret the world as an identity struggle.

Yeah, I don't doubt that I do.

But presenting an entire post full of loaded language that also rails against "Social Justice Warrior Sarah Sharp's crusade" while claiming to be just "looking at the facts" is disingenuous at best.

"crusade", "SJW mode", "ranting", "meandering", "here [sic] arguments are so weak I had nothing but good laugh" and it goes on and on.

The author couldn't be less objective and unprejudiced, if he tried. Obviously though he doesn't and couldn't give less of a fuck, not even remotely making an attempt at actually merely "Looking at the facts".

No matter where your opinion on Sarah Sharp, this piece makes one thing abundantly clear, the author is an asshole. Which I'm sure he doesn't mind being called, I mean this is all just fun right?

  The author couldn't be less objective and unprejudiced, if he tried.

As far as I understand it was a collection of things that had been written on the LKML.

It's not just a series of quotes (not that it would this would necessarily be objective). He provides clearly heavily biased commentary, starting with the title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com