Hacker News Reader

Comment by brymaster | Hacker News Reader

Just so you know why Thomas here has singled you out, specifically regarding video games:

I find that if you search ones 'timeline' for hash tags and other buzzwords you get a good sense for their stances on subjects.

View on HN

Bringing in a dossier on someone as extra ammunition in an argument? Over the line and not cool.

I disagree and I wouldn't call it a dossier. If someone takes a stance on a certain issue it is helpful to know why.

Edit: ...and I could have just the same pointed out to past comments on HN.

I think even bringing in a list of past HN comments would be over the line, though perhaps not as creepy. HN threads are supposed to be conversations, not courtrooms.

These were simply citations; adding context to someone's statement. I find it hard to understand that the information we all post freely online is creepy when we are confronted on it. Shouldn't we just stand by what we say?

Assembling a collection of someone's past statements to make them look bad is not "simply citations", it's a courtroom or political tactic, too aggressive for good conversation—i.e. for HN discussion—and because it breaches a boundary, yes, rather creepy.

You're not supposed to go around "confronting" people here. Let them add context to their own statements if they want to. Personal details or history shouldn't be brought in as ammunition.

This is a weird comment. I didn't assume the parent commenter was a GamerGate person. It is possible to dislike Sarkeesian and not be a GamerGater.

I "singled him out" because his was the first comment about this subject, and, at the time, the top comment on the thread.

Not a weird comment and you know why. I pointed to your comments about "GamerGate" because you singled him out with:

> The best "radical" quotes you have from this person are criticisms of video games?

"Video games" being the focus there.

Stop moving the goalposts. The argument isn't "Thomas was totally unaware of the GamerGate debacle". It's "Thomas never accused this HN commenter of being a GamerGater, so a bunch of tweets about GamerGate aren't in any way germane to the thread".

You're the one who brought my Twitter feed into this discussion. That was a weird thing to do, but whatever; the real issue is that your argument doesn't make sense in context, except as a way of trying to generate extra drama. Instead of talking about the three examples of "radical" video game criticism, let's instead litigate all of GamerGate!

It also wasn't helpful to that commenter for you to suggest they'd been "singled out". Replying to the top comment on the thread isn't "singling someone out".

No goalposts are being moved. Your relevant history on the subject is what was being pointed out. I think you know exactly why and it doesn't have anything to do with "generating" drama.

It sounds to me like you're disturbed that I don't like GamerGaters, and so are inclined to dismiss anything I have to say about Sarkeesian. That's fine, but it's a pretty boring point to make, and it's not an actual argument, because it doesn't engage with the substance of what I said.

If you have a real point to make, do it directly, instead of by insinuation.

Actually was disturbed that you felt 'exstudent2 should craft the conversation around whatever you want instead of his valid points about who this new Twitter committee associates with.

I think if you reread the (now dead) thread, you'll see that's not at all what I did. My first comment on the thread didn't appear until after that commenter had already dug into examples of speech he found objectionable from Sarkeesian.

It's pretty clear to me where you're coming from now, so I'll leave it there. Thanks.

Interesting. It's funny that the comment where I mention Gamergate is sitting at -2 but all of my comments that address the points of the movement are ~+6.

I wish people would look into it for themselves instead of just hearing out one side/the media. That's really what my argument is about. When you silence one side of an argument, uninvolved people are apt to believe the unchallenged narrative.

The problem is that taking the thread in that direction is guaranteed to make the discussion useless, regardless of what opinion one starts with. A small number of people get furious with each other and everyone else rolls their eyes.

We don't need another eye-roller for the nth dozenth time.

I agree, I was hesitant to mention it. It's hard not to bring it up though when Twitter includes one of the main participants in their council. In this case I thought it was relevant especially since Twitter really does censor related material.

I understand, but maybe it's a relevant detail we should still abstain from. Or maybe there's a way to bring it up that doesn't lead to flamewars, though I doubt it.

If you post here long enough, you'll find that when certain topics arise there are a group of three-letter acronyms prevalent in tech that make rational discussion of said topics nearly impossible.

Wait until you quote the founder of a branch of a religion on the origin of their name and get down voted for it. I've pretty much stopped commenting in certain threads even to explain what each side is thinking. Its not really worth the frustration.

[edit: talk about confirming my beliefs]

Yeah, I just hate that this happens with some topics, especially where I can see validity on both sides but many people on each side have such a strong slant in the us vs them position that they simply dismiss anything and everything the "opposition" says.

There is a lot of discussion we should be having about the realities of protecting people from harm while protecting freedom of expression and much of the discussion is completely aimless now.

Also, out of curiosity, what name are you referring to? I must have missed something.

SDA in a political thread mention Dr Carson where we have some folks with some awfully weird ideas about his religion. I was a tad bit offended as I grew up studying SDA and Catholic doctrine (mixed household). I guess there are still acceptable prejudices. The downvotes on the post pointing out Carson would have the same problem as Romney was just relish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com