[flagged]
Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.
It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.
<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>
Keep in mind that such acts are judgement calls, and I'll occasionally differ strongly with dang's take. For the most part, however, I find his moderation appropriate. Another point is that most HN moderation is actually performed by members, not mods, and admonisments (my term for his moderation comments) constitute only a very small number of moderator-specific interactions.
The prime directive of HN is "intellectual curiosity" (<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>), and ... regardless of how you feel about it ... taking a late hit on an accomplished author for one act on his obituary ... tends to be read poorly.
(Those whose lives were overwhelmingly negative may get different treatment. There've been a few recent obits that hit this mark in my view.)
And no, I'm not a mod, nor do I know what others' motivations are. I'm just pointing out the most likely guidelines and moderator rationales which are likely at play here.
This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977.
It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need?
HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.
That's a comment in a conversation
"I went to the Wikipedia page of someone I hadn't heard of and pasted the first thing I saw in 'Controversies' into a thread"
That's a shitpost.
To take nothing from the art of shitposting, this is a random messageboard for conversations, not a random messageboard for shitposting.
The other commenters made him sound interesting, so I wanted to see what his life was like and it turns out that he supported a pedophile. Seems relevant to me as I would want to know that about an author if I'm going to start reading their books.
Apparently these facts about him are just "random shit."
I could say you conveniently ignore the fact your comment was downvoted and flagkilled by other users. And like the other commenter, I'm trying to tell you why that happens - it's not, as you seem to think, because those users are keen on supporting an abuser.
I understand the argument you are attempting to make, I just don't buy it.