[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA
Not unlike Scott Adams. I find Dilbert funny. Am I supposed not to laugh because his political views do not align with mine (at all)?
Not everybody knows, because he's a relative nobody who occasionally gets laundered through HN. My only role in this entire thing is making sure that the bits that I know are available for consideration.
Same thing with Jordan Peterson. I must not agree with his stand points and positions, but his arguments are compelling at times and it is fun watching and following his stuff. I can only broaden my view if don't look into the same direction all the time.
And so... you'd rather just badmouth him on HN instead? This entire subthread is an ad hominem, and entirely inappropriate.
Where's the badmouthing? His reactionary politics are a critical part of the personal brand that he uses to advance his (again, incredibly mundane and well-trodden) content.
And guess what: I agree that it's inappropriate for HN. All things being equal, I'd prefer not to spend even the limited time I've spent today thinking about this. But for as long as reactionaries continue to use HN to launder their reputations, I'll continue to be the annoying commenter who points them out. I'm sorry if you think that's inappropriate.
Should we not be using RSS to replace social media because the person saying so might be a racist? Should racists be silenced when talking about other things?
The linked blog post is the kind of informational pablum that anybody with a handful of years of programming or IT experience could write.
That's what Luke Smith specializes in: milquetoast technological advice wrapped in a veneer of alt-right language designed to titillate his audience. I see no reason why we should give him center stage in our attentions when plenty of other, better, and more qualified people can talk cogently about the same topics.
You mean Brodie?