[flagged]

Well, of course not. We agree that some types of violence are okay, like police or military using violence for police and military things. I'm sure he wouldn't have posted that if people were cheering that a serial rapist has been shot by the police.

▲

raxxorraxor 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know the victim, but I believe there is a huge difference. Bin Laden did engage in war against the US.

Even then celebrations of death might not be fitting, but perhaps the excuse here is still on another level.

	▲	camillomiller 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

asalahli 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think dang was a moderator at that time

	▲	plumb_bob_00 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You are correct. > Meet the People Taking over Hacker News > by Paul Graham 3/29/2014 > ... > Finally, I’m delighted to announce that Daniel Gackle (pronounced Gackley), who has already been doing most of the moderation for the last 18 months, is going to join YC full-time to be in charge of the HN community. https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/meet-the-people-taking-over... Bin Laden was assassinated in 2011.

▲

collingreen 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think it should have been said then or do you think it shouldn't be said now?

Do you think it matters that Charlie kirk did a lot of mean talking and bin ladin directed a lot of violence?

For my bit, I really appreciated dang's top post. I don't agree that there are no differences between a terrorist leader and a right wing troll, but I do think that anger makes us collectively less and we could all benefit from an extra moment before scribbling an idea onto the internet.

	▲	jjani 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		The philosophy espoused by the stickied comment is based on the idea that it doesn't matter what the deeds of the person in question were; it's about the concept. Whether that philosophy is one I'd personally agree with, I'm not sure. But it's certainly one that doesn't match the idea of applying it to one but not the other - that's an entirely different philosophy. Which one is more valid is something we could discuss for many hours, and I'm sure we'd still end up with many, many different views.

▲

eitland 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

theshrike79 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

He wasn't "good at debates", he was Gish Galloping[0] so fast people couldn't keep up

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

▲

bigyabai 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They were both controversial religious nationalists, it is somewhat prudent politically-speaking.

▲

jrflowers 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Are you sure you want to do that?

They didn’t compare the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of someone mainly known for being good at debates. They compared the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of Charlie Kirk.

▲

eitland 5 days ago | parent [-]

Does it really make any difference whether they compared the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organisations for decades

- with someone who wasn’t good at debates,

- or with someone who was?

My point still stands: even if Charlie Kirk had been entirely unremarkable, it wouldn’t be right to compare him with someone responsible for thousands of civilian deaths?

	▲	jrflowers 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> even if Charlie Kirk had been entirely unremarkable, it wouldn’t be right to compare him with someone responsible for thousands of civilian deaths? Of course not. Thankfully no one compared those two people.

▲

PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

raxxorraxor 5 days ago | parent [-]

He was good enough that someone decided he needed to be shot.

	▲	PartiallyTyped 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Affirming the consequent. I can see why some believe he is “good”.
	▲	peterashford 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

mbs159 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

aredox 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

jjani 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomhow 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Dang hadn't even begun working on HN in 2011, even as pg's co-moderator (that only happened the following year). HN, and the world, were vastly different places then. Dang has now been doing the job in some form for over a decade, and I've been around for plenty of those years too. We've learned much about what is needed to keep discussions as healthy as possible (relatively speaking). These days it's not unusual for us to post a sticky comment at the top of a thread for a major controversial topic, to remind the community of the guidelines and the expected standard of discourse. In today's world, we would post that kind of top comment for any death of a major public figure that were likely to stir up strong reactions in the comments.

▲

eitland 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	Kbelicius 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, he was not comparing reactions. He went back to check the Bin Laden comment section to see if there were such comments to warrant a sticky from dang.