Hacker News Reader

Comment by DetectDefect | Hacker News Reader

Why do people trawl through a poster's history in attempt to disarm their argument? Surely just addressing it on its own merit is sufficient, no?

View on HN

If somebody pisses on your shoe every day, do you just try to reason with them from scratch on the 10th day? Would you introduce yourself first, and inquire as to the reason why they are assuming the position?

I don't understand this perception that it is sacrilegious to look at somebody's posting history to discern any patterns in their behaviour.

No one appears to be pissing on shoes, but a public urination analogy may be fitting here. Should the alleged offender be reprimanded for their obvious behavior, or have their past bladder expressions deeply scrutinized first?

Have you actually read the account history? Elon himself would be proud.

Not when the account’s entire purpose is to political troll or glaze a particular Internet celebrity. That kind of bad faith belongs on Reddit.

Schrödinger's comment: you wouldn't know an account's purpose if you did not first trawl its history.

Let be honest, you'd only bother trawling if you already had significant suspicion.

This suspicion is likely an unconscious bias.

Because we live in a world where people are paid to spread FUD and disinformation especially related to political topics. Meanwhile one only has so much time to address arbitrary arguments. If it looks like the argument is being made for disingenuous purposes then engaging with it is probably a waste of your time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com