Remix clone Hacker News

You are misunderstanding their point. They are not saying that anybody is denying the election results.

A "bare fact", as they put it, is a statement exclusively of fact. Adding the qualifier to the fact makes it no longer a "bare fact". To use their example, "Snoop won the election," is a bare fact and, "Snoop won the election and that's bad," is not a bare fact.

What they are saying is that some people cannot accept "bare fact" statements as such; they tend to add or expect some qualifier to the effect of "that's good" or "that's bad".

▲

UltraSane 6 days ago | parent [-]

I quote OP "Donald Trump was elected president. Can you accept that as a bare fact? Probably not if you've fought with people about it."

	▲	csours 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is meta communication - communicating about communication. In a complex world it is important to understand when and why communication fails. I feel that it is important to accept that some things are hard to talk about, and it is important to understand why those things are hard to talk about. It is hard to communicate rationally while the fight or flight response is engaged. It is hard to communicate rationally to people who either explicitly want to hurt you or who don't mind if you are harmed.
	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That quote is consistent with what I wrote. If a quarrel (or a physical fight) breaks out over a discussion about a fact then it’s likely that the parties involved with the quarrel aren’t accepting the fact as “bare” (per the meaning I take from OP’s comment). That is to say, they implicitly or explicitly include the “that’s good” or “that’s bad” qualifier alongside the fact rather than accepting it as a “bare” statement of fact.