new | show | ask | jobs Github

jack_tripper a day ago

[flagged]

▲

otikik a day ago | parent | next [-]

> start removing more and more of your rights to bear arms

Wasn't he killed in New York? Not a lot of right to bear arms there as far as I know.

▲

jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-]

You think New York is as bad as it could ever be in terms of gun control?

	▲	otikik 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, I don't think it's as good as it could be.

▲

lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> because most people are as clueless as you

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-]

You mean he wasn't being clueless with that point of view? Like the majority of the population who can't do 8th grade math let alone understand the complexities of out financial systems that lead to the ever expanding wealth inequality?

Or do you mean we shouldn't be allowed to call out people we notice are clueless because it might hurt their feelings and consider it "fulmination"? But then how will they know they might be wrong if nobody dares calls them out ? Isn't this toxic positivity culture and focus on feelings rather than facts, a hidden form of speech suppression, and a main cause in why people stay clueless and wealth inequality increases? Because they grow up in a bubble where their opinions get reinforced and never challenged or criticized because of an arbitrary set of speech rules will get lawyered and twisted against any form of criticism?

Have you seen how John Carmack or Linus Torvalds behaves and talks to people he disagrees with? They'd get banned by HN rules day one.

So I don't really see how my comment broke that rule since there's no fulmination there, no snark, no curmudgeonly, just an observation.

▲

qsera a day ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with what you say.

But here is the thing. HN needs to keep the participants comfortable and keep the discussion going. Same with the world at large, hence the global "toxic positivity culture"...

▲

lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Or do you mean we shouldn't be allowed to call out people we notice are clueless?

That’s exactly what it means. You’ll note I’ve been very polite to you in the rest of the thread despite your not having made citations for any of your claims; this takes deliberate effort, because the alternative is that the forum devolves to comments that amount to: “Nuh-uh, you’re stupid,” which isn’t of much interest to anyone.

▲

jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-]

>“Nuh-uh, you’re stupid,”

You're acting in bad faith now, by trying to draw a parallel on how calling someone clueless (meaning lacking in certain knowledge on the topic) is the same as calling someone stupid which is a blatant insult I did not use.

	▲	lurk2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> meaning lacking in certain knowledge on the topic Clueless has a pejorative connotation. I am struggling to imagine how anyone would read a comment like: > because most people are as clueless as you about the reality of how things work and not interpret it to be pejorative.