For the love of god, stop with this shit. Either support it or don't, this isn't the medieval catholic church and you don't need some special fucking blessing to make an argument.
> If anyone would like to present a secret third thing, please do so.
(c) The argument, as presented, can be read more than one way, and by 'steelmanning' it you are choosing to read it charitably and respond to its strongest version.
I think that's basically what the other guy meant: we can read "the world should accept some bad things" to mean something like "fuck you, we'll do what we like and the world will suffer the consequences" (less charitable, arguably a strawman) or something like "there will not be literally zero costs, but we think the shared benefits will be much greater" (more charitable, arguably a steelman), and he was choosing the latter.
In the (very limited) release of Epstein files that has already happened, Trump's name appears more often than Harry Potter's name appears in the 7 books of the Harry Potter series.
i mean.. i get it. (point 1)
i'd never do it. (point 2)
i also said, it is the internet and people will do that because famous people are... famous... and if there's an AI video of a famous person that I do like, i will give it a like.
if Robin Williams was some guy who worked as a cashier at Trader Joe's his whole life nobody would care
maybe Robin Williams should have never been an actor then he'd be unknown to the masses, like 99% of us on HN
> i mean.. i get it. (point 1) i'd never do it. (point 2)
And?
> i also said, it is the internet and people will do that because famous people are... famous... and if there's an AI video of a famous person that I do like, i will give it a like.
Essentially: it happens a lot so it must be OK. Lovely morals.
> if Robin Williams was some guy who worked as a cashier at Trader Joe's his whole life nobody would care
People don't care about a random murder victim as much as they care about Rob Reiner; murder is still wrong and deplorable.
> maybe Robin Williams should have never been an actor then he'd be unknown to the masses, like 99% of us on HN
Whataboutism is a sign that you've lost the argument in the best of cases, but it's particularly disgusting to attempt to use it to distract from the blood of a hundred murdered children on your own country's hands.
It was a factual statement. If you want to clutch your pearls I think you should stand next to the parents of the dead murdered at the hands of Iran and do it there.
Hilarious that you don't see the hypocrisy in your own post. I have plenty of judgment for Iran's regime, it's a pity you can't bring yourself to condemn child murderers who happen to be from your own country.
I can’t condemn child murderers since nobody in the US murdered children, but I can get behind general criticism of our failure to be perfect. I would say we need to get better at holding our noses and doing what must be done, or we need to get better at extremely precise attacks so when these atrocious people set up their military bases in civilian facilities or nearby we don’t cause collateral damage.
But it goes to show how awful Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more are. They use children as shields because they know we don’t want to kill children. On the other hand they affirmatively do murder children, including their own, and Hamas raped and murdered children in 2023 when they attacked a concert. They and all who support them including the children they love probably don’t deserve a lot of sympathy, but we’re the better people so we put up with it, unlike most countries or civilizations.
You're a couple decades late there, it was Clinton and the Third Way(tm) Democrats that abandoned blue collar workers.
(Of course, that doesn't capture the full story either -- before '92, white blue collar workers were already abandoning the Democrats to support Reagan while he and the Republicans gutted private sector unions.)
I think people may disagree with you on what constitutes a tangential annoyance. Is there any point at which the format is, in fact, a legitimate annoyance?
tangential and legitimate are not mutually exclusive. the majority of the grievances are infact the latter; they are legitimate
what makes them also the former is that (and surely the reason for the rule) is that because these grievances are so commonly expressed when links are shared they create a near constant 'noise' in the signal to noise of each discussion, with signal being the idea or message intended to be shared by the poster rather than the medium it arrived in
a better way to discuss the tangent or the medium would be by submitting its own HN post. that way theres a better S/N ratio for everything
example: scientific breakthrough is shared on fbook
signal: any discussion about that breakthrough or its Nth order effects on anything
noise: any discussion about the fbook website, walled gardens, zark muckerburg, anything that would be on any link for that site regardless of the message inside the medium
those discussions arent illegitimate, they are better served by targeted discussion on their posts like..
some websites are stylized the point of illegibility
fbook website dark patterns
popups make alt F4
..rather than increasing noise across the whole of HN. this rule is closely related to another site rule: "use the best possible interpretation of the parent comment" because it too is a rule that is in place as an attempt to steer toward "curious discussion" (high S/N ratio)
( i will agree in this case the illegibility warrants a comment chain, holy smokes! )
For the love of god, stop with this shit. Either support it or don't, this isn't the medieval catholic church and you don't need some special fucking blessing to make an argument.
reply