Hacker News Reader

Comment by hereforphone | Hacker News Reader

Never threaten a Clinton (I anticipate downvotes.. and they'll be reinforcing my position that they're off-limits)

I, like many people, downvote anything that says something of the nature "I anticipate downvotes", lest you think I downvoted for political reasons

Indeed. It's the purest form of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think "I anticipate downvotes" is fine. "If you downvote me I will lean harder into my position" is basically blackmail (admittedly lame and ineffective blackmail), which is why I downvoted it.

I'm a little more strict, and draw the line at pretty much any extraneous assertion that your audience is going to disagree with you. E.g. "Controversial opinion: ...", "The HN crowd will downvote me, but ...", etc. It's an unnecessary injection of negativity, pettily frames one's self as the underdog, and provokes by implying that the people you're addressing are wrong before they've even replied to you. Obviously the internet is largely not a place to give crowds the benefit of the doubt, but it's critical for places with a shred of the expectation of real discussion, like HN.

What's more likely - Chelsea's hacker news goon squad is here to brigade you, or nobody is interested in reheated Rush Limbaugh mid 90s slop?

Are you aware of the drama between Shkreli and Hillary that I was referring to?

The fact of a thing doesn't imply causality, and if causality is evident in this case, it still doesn't provide a license for glib sarcasm.

Do you believe glib sarcasm should require a license?

Only in the United Kingdom.

This is getting downvotes, but it is true Shkreli got his bail revoked for offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC.

You use the word "but", which implies some kind of inverse relationship between your clauses, but I don't see anything to indicate that.

If putting a bounty to harass a person is not a crime it absolutely should be IMHO

The day he started that he should be put in jail regardless of being on bail

>"offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC"

Am I alone in seeing this as an act of a sophomoric troll rather than an actual bounty put on someone?

I wouldn't disagree with the former interpretation, but publicly offering thousands of dollars for something carries a real risk somebody will take you up on the offer.

It's strange because I think if the same $5000/hair offering were made for an average person it would be much more serious. But in my mind someone who is so prominent and guarded by the Secret Service is in virtually no danger from such an outlandish thing. But I do understand how someone would see it the other way and not be comfortable with the risk at all.

First, I think it can be both, and second, it's important to be careful around the common fallacious defense for shitty people where the implication is that they should not be judged or experience certain ramifications (legal or social) because "it's all just trolling", "for the luls", "you can't take what he/she says seriously", "it's your fault for getting offended", etc. There are certainly arguments to be made one way or the other in these cases, but one standout damning feature that's common to a lot of them (including this one) is that of public reception. If you encourage something, all that matters is how likely and severe the consequences of that are, regardless of whether you were "just trolling". If you're a famous and wealthy person with a cult of personality and a politically divided following (or even if you just hit a couple of those notes), it's your responsibility to not offer people thousands of dollars to get hair from your enemies, even under the (conveniently subjective) guise of sarcasm/joking.

For how many years?

Certainly less than thirty billion

I think there are people whose jobs are to determine the appropriate punishment for criminal actions. They might be able to give you a tighter upper bound

So if your comment were heavily upvoted you would've reconsidered your position? Or will any outcome whatsoever just reinforce your existing ideas?

What are my existing ideas?

Your post was, "Never threaten a Clinton (I anticipate downvotes.. and they'll be reinforcing my position that they're off-limits)". Your position, AKA existing ideas, are "Never threaten a Clinton", and "they're off-limits", implying that they have special and unfair power/treatment in the political and legal world, but specifically with regards to the specific outcome of the specific case of Shkreli. The parent's criticism was in regards to your attitude on downvotes, which makes sense independent of whether your position is justified or true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com