Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by smt88 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

smt88

Your comment comes across as repulsive because it seems you believe the following:

1) People with conditions like diabetes are a burden, and having fewer of them will save us money.

2) The housing crisis is caused by overpopulation, not by perverse incentives or inequality of opportunity.

3) Younger people create more economic output.

4) You are excited about all of this -- specifically, about all of these people dying.

Sick people are not weak sheep in a herd. You have no idea what their net output or effect on society is. Many of the dead are talented doctors or nurses who had asthma or asymptomatic heart issues.

If you're excited about hundreds of thousands of people dying, keep it to yourself. Many of the rest of us will lose loved ones before this is over.

View on HN

You have packed a lot of assumed motivations into that reply. We have but this to go on: "I wonder what effect it will have on future of the countries."

Though you might find it repulsive, I have no problem thinking out loud about the possible outcomes.

You are excited about all of this

You have no idea what the parent's mental state is on this, and of the possible interpretations, you have chosen the least charitable one. Moral grandstanding might best be left "<kept> to yourself" as well.

Thanks for saying this. Since 3 others are criticizing you for the same reasons I'll just reply directly to you.

You can take smt88's reply as language criticism or moral criticism. The use of !? in two out of four paragraphs in econcon's post certainly implies excitement, and choosing only to focus on the "positive silver linings" certainly sends a particular message.

I'm sure there's a way to talk sensibly about this very cynical speculation of what might happen to society in a pandemic like this, but econcon's way of phrasing it is not the way. If the language of a post sends a certain message about the underlying morals of the post, I see no reason not to start criticizing that.

The use of !? in two out of four paragraphs in econcon's post certainly implies excitement

You claim insight into another's mind based on colloquial use of punctuation marks!? "Forensic grammarian here, let me take a look...yup, it is clear that they are excited for people to die." Seriously lame. To support my point, I'll point out that I most usually use "!?" as a WTF indicator, or other expression of surprise or disgust. To my recollection, not once have I used it to indicate positive excitement. 'cuz there ain't no style guide on using "!?".

But, man, someone really, really wants to get butt-hurt over that comment, all other indicators be damned.

I don't understand your 4th conclusion at all. He never once said he's excited, you are assuming quite a lot...

People are allowed to analyze world events and their consequences like this without having to individually pander to everyone who was personally affected.

This is like yelling at someone for analyzing the effect of WW2's aftermath on Europe.

> I don't understand your 4th conclusion at all. He never once said he's excited, you are assuming quite a lot...

It was the combination of the unnecessary exclamation marks and the lack of speculation that people dying is bad. All of the speculation was about the people being bad for the economy, and how things may get better when they're gone.

> This is like yelling at someone for analyzing the effect of WW2's aftermath on Europe.

OK, let's run with your analogy. What if someone wrote the following:

After WW2, will the tax burden of education young men suddenly go down!?

Will we see better classroom ratios because so many young people have died!?

Will hospitals have more space because the population is lower!?

It's theoretically valid speculation, but it's also only representing the positive side of millions of deaths.

Slow your roll and don't immediately assume the worst.

I think english is not the OP's first language and I believe they were (perhaps unwittingly clinically) discussing long term impacts and trends.

How you interpreted this as some sort of gleeful desire to watch old/sick people die speaks more of you than them.

> Many of the dead are talented doctors or nurses who had asthma or asymptomatic heart issues.

Many of them are, but most of them aren't. This isn't a pleasant subject, but when you're talking about events at this scale, general trends count for something. I'm growing pretty weary of the moral grandstanding in these conversations.

You can recognise the subject isn’t pleasant, yet you’re surprised people react badly to it?

I didn't say I'm surprised. I said I'm growing weary. Wearier by the minute..

Have you considered not doing the things that make you weary?

Are you saying that I am morally grandstanding myself? Maybe so, but I'm not claiming to be "repulsed" nor claiming that people are acting "immoral and insane", as others in this conversation are. I have made an attempt to express my feelings using mild language.

If your point is that I shouldn't engage with people who make me weary, maybe your right, and maybe I shouldn't bother responding to you either. On the other hand, perhaps responding calmly might move the needle of the conversation back towards the civil, if only slightly.

The latter. If you are aware that a specific subject only results in you being regarded as immoral, it is likely impossible to be perceived as “civil” regardless of what words you use to express yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com