Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazzlazzlazz | Hacker News Reader

You're going to be downvoted for a troll-y, baiting post that has no content. Being downvoted will not validate your hypothesis.

View on HN

I made a statement about HN's worrying MRA hive that doesn't appear to see any problem with this top comment, but with mine (btw, you prove my point too).

I'm sure there's quite a few people who think the OP is terribly offensive, and are appalled at the insinuation it wouldn't be downvoted or moderated.

Edit: The fact that your post got flagged faster than the OP on the other hand does reinforce your point and reflects very badly on HN.

I know that plenty of these people exist. But the anti-fem crowd outweighs them right now, once more. At least when looking at these votes. This is worrying since, after all, this shapes the discussion, the atmosphere here and the minds of people with yet to stabilize opinions.

I edited my post. You were, however unfortunately, completely right.

I, probably like a lot of others, took this post as a tongue-in-cheek joke. I think we're all mature enough to handle it, as the humour comes from how offensive the joke is and not from some universal truth behind the statement.

If it actually was meant as a serious comment and is being upvoted, then that's truly fucked up and would make me seriously question this forum. But I'm giving benefit of the doubt.

Take a look at the posting history of OP to get an idea.

If you have a problem with the post, state what it is. Bashing HN for whatever "hive" you see it containing is baiting.

It's a factual statement, not baiting, to observe that her comment was [flagged] instantly for containing a passing "downvoting" remark, while the original comment is still one of the highest voted comments in this thread.

This confirms that, indeed, the HN audience does not see any serious problems with the statement: "Females have evolved to extract resources from males.", which is exemplified by your request to state what the problem with it is.

The HN audience likely sees a number of potential readings in context and is interested in which particular one you and GP have chosen to reify. It's unlikely (as shown by negative comments) that the community approves or agrees with all of them.

> which is exemplified by your request

I requested nothing. If you care to offer you opinions do so, but do just that rather than speculate - the lack of down-votes for the above post confirms nothing, you are speculating; whereas challenging the content of the post directly might reveal more.

That comment was directly at odds with HN's guidelines:

"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

And when Colin Percival, a widely respected member of community quoted exactly that excerpt, that person got combative and doubled down, throwing baseless accusations of some kind of MRA conspiracy.

Frankly, I am disturbed by a display of such callousness, not giving people the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is obvious and needs no explanation. The post in question extrapolates that all women are gold diggers from a single study that purports to have found manipulative behavior in a few groups of monkeys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com