Hacker News Reader

Comment by wild_preference | Hacker News Reader

Looking at your screenshot you post elsewhere (https://ibb.co/hoSMHK), I have to agree with them insofar as you need to know when to quit.

Running a forum is hard work and everyone wants to devolve every mod decision into rules lawyering, like "well, then why wasn't this specific thing in the rules?"

No, there can't be a rule for literally everything, so you're just going to have to be an adult and take it on the chin when the mods make a decision and double down on it. I completely empathize with dang's final post, that your "legalistic gambit" is a waste of everyone's time, and often the platform people like to spring off some sort of "omg the mod tyranny" campaign.

That happened over 70 days ago. Maybe it's time to let it go and learn to live with the fact that your tiny comment was flagged. Looking at your post history, you've lived through much worse, respectfully.

View on HN

The "legalistic gambit" is definitely a real thing. I've just learned the other day that there's a neologism for this: "sealioning" [1], defined as

> pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning

Sounds like an unfounded presumption of bad faith.

Like presuming everyone male will act just like the chimpanzees in your study? Do you have any studies of female chimpanzees you want to claim predict the behavior of all the women on HN?

It's an observed and documented behavioral pattern, it's not a presumption of motive. No reasonable interpretation of my original comment implies that one should assume all males will act like chimpanzees. Interesting and productive discussion can't be had without paying attention to the nuance of what is being discussed.

Observed and documented behavior in chimpanzees or humans? So where's your observation based documentation that humans behave the same as chimpanzees?

Or is your point just baseless name calling and dehumanization: that you think the humans on HN behave like chimps, but you don't have any proof of that, just proof of how chimps behave?

If you just want to call people chimps, then just call people chimps and take your licks for that, but stop beating around the bushes like such a chimp.

Looks like you blew a seal!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ETlTZoF1E

It's well known that there is a lot of shared behavior among apes. We look for patterns in behavior across species to better understand that behavior. I never name-called or dehumanized anyone and to think I did is an unprovoked and uncharitible interpretation of my initial statement. My goal was to frame the behavior Jacques observed in an objective scientific context. My goal was never to "call people chimps." Do you think it's possible for someone to point out shared behavior between humans and other apes without malicious intentions?

Wow, you really are the archetypal sea lion, aren't you?

You've seen the cartoon of course, haven't you? Of course you have, because you're acting exactly as the cartoon describes, and you are well aware of what you're doing, while pretending you don't know, and that you never heard of the term, even after it's been pointed out to you several times.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

Now that I've given you a link and explained it to you yet again, your pretense of not knowing what we're talking about when we accuse you of sea-lioning is no longer valid, so give it up.

Failure to acknowledge that you've read the definition of that term, understand what it means, and how it perfectly describes what you're doing, constitutes an admission of guilt that you're not arguing in good faith.

So how do you expect me to respond now that I've seen this cartoon? I genuinely have no ill will towards you or anyone, I'm simply trying to defend what I think is right in what I think is the most reasonable and civil way possible. Accusing someone of "sea lioning" is creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, if you're criticizing them for being reasonable and civil, how else should they defend themselves?

Is it possible to bring up ape behavioral studies without being accused of bad intentions? What do you propose is the best way to go about it?

Stop.

Wow, no counter argument. Just shut down discussion. Okay

No, not okay. Just stop.

You nailed it. That's precisely what he's doing, and he knows it and is doing it on purpose (see below -- or better yet, don't bother). He doesn't really mean anything he says, and his civility is just a shallow pretense. The fact that he's shadow banned shows how well the moderation system works! Thank you again, moderators!

Concur ..

From the OSS (CIA) Simple Sabotage Manual: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...

(1) Insist on doing everything through"channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

(2) Make "speeches," Talk as frequently as possible and at great length., Illustrate your. points.. by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments

(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five.

(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. . . .

While I don’t agree with @comesee, I don’t see his comments are offensive/vulgar language. Even the parent comment states very short and simple fact:

> dang called me a troll after I simply asked him exactly what it was about my comment that warranted it being removed.

Why do you think this tiny little comment worthy of immediate massive downvotes so that no one even can upvote it any more?

Is it your expectation that people commenting here must submit themselves to popular opinion? Is diverging from group think or disagreeing with mods punishable by immediate shadow banning?

1. Because the comment didn't stop there. Why leave off the bit on the end? Because it would ruin your case? 2. Because, with what I've learnt of dang, the comment you quoted is certain to be not the whole story, to the point of being false. I'd wager a lot of money on that.

The full thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517514

That was an interesting comment, it's a pity it went out like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com