Hacker News Reader

Comment by user-the-name | Hacker News Reader

You think threatening violence against journalists is "top notch"?

Is that what Hacker News is now? Has it really descended that far into actual fascism?

Explains the joke:

It starts off with normal support, goes towards outlandish support, then concerning support, then ethically-questionable “support”, and after every one, Scott's written “I am humbled by [pronoun] support”.

This is an overly hostile reading of the above comment, Scott certainly didn't, and wouldn't, threaten violence against anyone.

There is so much context in the rest of the newsletter that makes it clear Scott is not the sort of person who supports violence against journalists.

No, he's just the kind of person who is happy to be associated with those who do.

You have failed to parse what is being said correctly in this case.

Imagine: You're clicking around the web, and you find an article posted by a respected food critic and French chef titled "10 food items I detest at McDonalds". You click through, and nod your head at number 6: "Their milkshakes - so called - appear to have no relationship to milk, dairy products, or edibility, and all the flavours taste vaguely of chalk and despair." You laugh in agreement at number 8: "The fries are mediocre when fresh, but quickly congeal under the heat lamps into a starchy, greasy, undigestible brick." But number 7 gives you pause: "The chicken nuggets. The rich flavours, the unique shapes, the delicate breading. What tastier treat could be imagined?"

You quickly jump onto social media and post an outraged rant - how could this man like chicken nuggets? You suggest that perhaps he's not as good a critic or chef as imagined, and you float the idea of starting a petition asking for him to be fired. A man who loves chicken nuggets can hardly be trusted in, near, or writing about a kitchen after all, right?

But of course, this was sarcasm. It's a list of foods he does not like, and tucked into the middle of this list of foods he does not like is a sarcastic description of chicken nuggets, which he also does not like.

Similarly, here, Scott is in the middle of a list of people he disagrees with who contacted him to offer unsolicited, unhelpful advice. One of them is Srinivasan, but his gently mocking description of Srinivasan's advice is no more an endorsement of Srinivasan's views than his description of the Gamergater's offer is an edorsement of Gamergate or their PR efforts.

What the person you were responding to was obviously doing was not saying that "threats against journalists is top notch", but that Scott's writing criticising Srinivasan's anti-journalist crusade was top notch. Which is, I think, a fair assessment; it was a well written criticism of Srinivasan.

I'm fairly certain they were saying the excerpt they pasted was "top notch", not the idea of violence towards journalists.

Try a good faith interpretation.

Then you'll understand what they actually meant.

Good faith got us the 1/6 coup attempt. It's time we hold public figures to a higher standard. This is not the time to joke about violence against journalists.

What do you think of the journalists not caring about violence towards Scott?

For that matter why is Scott not considered a journalist?

Many of his pieces are deeply researched and analytical of current affairs and are certainly comparable to magazine journalism.

Now? As opposed to 3 months ago when you made this account?

It's not super uncommon for people who've been on HN for years to create alts, new accounts, throwaways, finally decided to stop lurking, etc. ahem :)

I don't even think the user who posted the comment was in support of violence against journalists, much less the author as others have said.

Additionally, journalists are just journalists. Sometimes, knowingly or unknowingly, the things they publish work in favour of fascists and fascism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com