Although the author turned out to be a fairly despicable person, Prime Obsession is an absolutely wonderful book on this subject.

▲

daoboy a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is one of the few places I ever engage on the internet, but I think it may be time for HN to be read-only, too.

This didn't seem especially controversial of a comment, and even here there's no end of the rotten attitudes for no good reason

	▲	cwmoore 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What you call rotten attitudes seemed like fairly thoughtfully doing the research you left out of an opaque and off-topic character determination. Read-only or read never is looking wiser than it did a few years ago.

▲

IAmBroom a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I despise vague and quasi-anonymous attacks like this. "Trust me, online person, I, a random netizen, have made a moral judgment and you should have complete faith in it."

Google summarizes the controversy thus, from Wikipedia:

"John Derbyshire is an American journalist and political commentator. He was one of the last paleoconservatives at the National Review, until he was fired in 2012 for writing an article for Taki's Magazine that was widely described as racist. Since 2012 he has written for white nationalist website VDARE. Wikipedia

▲

smokedetector1 a day ago | parent [-]

Would you prefer OC was more specific, ie “the author turned out to be a racist”, or do you have an issue with calling someone like this despicable?

▲

IAmBroom 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Obviously, I would prefer OC was more specific. I said as much.

	▲	smokedetector1 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Genuine question: are you on the spectrum? I find this reaction strange

▲

linksnapzz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I always read that word as though it were being pronounced by Daffy Duck; "you're dethpikable!".

▲

cwmoore a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it not obvious? Replace “fairly despicable” with “white nationalist” instead of whatever anyone might imagine could make a mathematician despicable?

▲

smokedetector1 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Why does this shorthand upset you?

▲

cwillu 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A shorthand is generally unambiguous in context; this was not.

	▲	smokedetector1 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why does it matter to you so much that OC is unambiguous?

▲

cwmoore 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am not upset. It is obviously obstusely, impenetrably vague. What is your problem?