5 ms·

Let's put together a bunch of what you said, because you are indeed so close to guessing, and I don't doubt you can, as a fellow anarchist. Behavior patterns o

Let's put together a bunch of what you said, because you are indeed so close to guessing, and I don't doubt you can, as a fellow anarchist. Behavior patterns of Group X (that is then passed on to other groups): - being a special and isolated group from the rest of human kind - having suffered uniquely - having unique significance - pulling the special-group card all the time (say, to stifle criticism) - believing other groups are assaulting them on all fronts (say, like a paranoia towards an outgroup) - attempting grand standing on their being the most oppressed by society (say, by discussing on a TV show whether their suffering was the most awful of all) - never admitting they are wrong on something (say, in History, where if you disagree with their version, it can only be because you might hate them) I gave you many hints but as you can tell, the hints come from your posts. You are so spot on. But now you must guess, who is Group X who is influencing other groups to adopt this same behavior?

norea-armozel 11y ago
You seem to be playing the role of an obscurer. I'm going to suggest that if you want people to actually engage you that you engage them. Playing this sort of pseudo-socratic inquiry isn't going to get your point across. If you can't make it in less than a paragraph then don't attempt to make the point.
- Nadya 11y ago
  It's a /pol/ troll by the looks of it. They're referencing Jews. Just ignore them.
- minority-one 11y ago
  I take issue with your accusing me of trolling on the other comment. I am being playful but I am not trolling. What I am talking about is a concerted effort that began with Psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century and moved on to the Frankfurt School and then the New York Intellectuals and now takes the form of Cultural Marxism. I recommend that you look up these keywords to learn more about the behaviors you have rightfully noticed. If you're interested in information with scholarly citations about this subject I recommend The Culture of Critique, it's a book that will open your eyes. I'd be willing to send you the book for free if you don't want to pay for it. That's because when I find people that seem to be on to the truth (like you), I give them a chance to peer deeper into the darkness. Like I said, I took all the hints from things you said. It's clear you see it too. I understand people are very leery of pointing fingers especially when the conversation involves certain untouchable groups. However, as a trans person I'm sure you have courage in spades to study this subject without prejudice and preconceived notions you might have acquired during education in school. If you still think I'm a troll, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me how better I could approach this subject with you without coming across as a troll. I can do it easily in person, but online it seems to always come across as trollish, I suppose because mentioning Jews is something usually seen done by shady characters with hidden agendas. However, I believe one can talk about Yakuza without indicting all Japanese, or talk about the Mafia without indicting all Italians.
  - dang 11y ago
    I'm afraid your comments do come across as trolling, and repeatedly so. If you're serious about not coming across that way, two things you should do at a minimum are: (1) not toss drive-by flamebait into the threads, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10382497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10382497 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10376183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10376183. Those are low-substance, high-provocation comments that are guaranteed to produce more of the same, only worse—exactly the opposite of what we want on HN. (2) edit out every trace of snark like "But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on." That stuff is poison and adds fuel to the fire. Beyond that: tone down your claims, substantiate them more, and stop using ideological buzzwords.
    - minority-one 11y ago
      Thank you, dang, I appreciate the concrete guidelines. I was actually thinking of emailing you over this. I promise you I will try to behave as you have proposed here. I think those are fair guidelines. In fact I very much appreciate your laying them down clearly like that. If the "no negativity" policy were as well fleshed-out as you just did here I think it would be more helpful. I will abide by your rules because I want to keep posting here. But if I abide by the rules and you still detach my threads as off-topic, then it will have been an unfair deal in my opinion. I'd be curious to know, respectfully, if you chided the user to whom I was replying, since what they said can easily be construed as instigation: > No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out... "we all know how that turned out" DOT DOT DOT is instigation and we all know he's rubbing the Holocaust on everyone's faces without spelling it out. To me that is a foul silencing tactic and it needs to be called out on. That is what I attempted to do when I made my "carry on" remark, after having substantially and politely fleshed out the topic in that same reply. So as you can see, from my end your enforcement sometimes looks biased. EDIT: In fact I'd like clarification on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10381398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10381398 Their post amounts to nothing more than "Intelligence research is actually 150 years old and it ended with the Holocaust". Now what do you call that? Isn't that snarky flamebait? It looks like it to me. Shouldn't that claim be toned down a little? Shouldn't it be substantiated a little more? I want to respect you but for that you will have to uphold your vetting standards equally amongst all players.

norea-armozel 11y ago

You seem to be playing the role of an obscurer. I'm going to suggest that if you want people to actually engage you that you engage them. Playing this sort of pseudo-socratic inquiry isn't going to get your point across. If you can't make it in less than a paragraph then don't attempt to make the point.

Nadya 11y ago
It's a /pol/ troll by the looks of it. They're referencing Jews. Just ignore them.
minority-one 11y ago
I take issue with your accusing me of trolling on the other comment. I am being playful but I am not trolling. What I am talking about is a concerted effort that began with Psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century and moved on to the Frankfurt School and then the New York Intellectuals and now takes the form of Cultural Marxism. I recommend that you look up these keywords to learn more about the behaviors you have rightfully noticed. If you're interested in information with scholarly citations about this subject I recommend The Culture of Critique, it's a book that will open your eyes. I'd be willing to send you the book for free if you don't want to pay for it. That's because when I find people that seem to be on to the truth (like you), I give them a chance to peer deeper into the darkness. Like I said, I took all the hints from things you said. It's clear you see it too. I understand people are very leery of pointing fingers especially when the conversation involves certain untouchable groups. However, as a trans person I'm sure you have courage in spades to study this subject without prejudice and preconceived notions you might have acquired during education in school. If you still think I'm a troll, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me how better I could approach this subject with you without coming across as a troll. I can do it easily in person, but online it seems to always come across as trollish, I suppose because mentioning Jews is something usually seen done by shady characters with hidden agendas. However, I believe one can talk about Yakuza without indicting all Japanese, or talk about the Mafia without indicting all Italians.
- dang 11y ago
  I'm afraid your comments do come across as trolling, and repeatedly so. If you're serious about not coming across that way, two things you should do at a minimum are: (1) not toss drive-by flamebait into the threads, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10382497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10382497 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10376183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10376183. Those are low-substance, high-provocation comments that are guaranteed to produce more of the same, only worse—exactly the opposite of what we want on HN. (2) edit out every trace of snark like "But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on." That stuff is poison and adds fuel to the fire. Beyond that: tone down your claims, substantiate them more, and stop using ideological buzzwords.
  - minority-one 11y ago
    Thank you, dang, I appreciate the concrete guidelines. I was actually thinking of emailing you over this. I promise you I will try to behave as you have proposed here. I think those are fair guidelines. In fact I very much appreciate your laying them down clearly like that. If the "no negativity" policy were as well fleshed-out as you just did here I think it would be more helpful. I will abide by your rules because I want to keep posting here. But if I abide by the rules and you still detach my threads as off-topic, then it will have been an unfair deal in my opinion. I'd be curious to know, respectfully, if you chided the user to whom I was replying, since what they said can easily be construed as instigation: > No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out... "we all know how that turned out" DOT DOT DOT is instigation and we all know he's rubbing the Holocaust on everyone's faces without spelling it out. To me that is a foul silencing tactic and it needs to be called out on. That is what I attempted to do when I made my "carry on" remark, after having substantially and politely fleshed out the topic in that same reply. So as you can see, from my end your enforcement sometimes looks biased. EDIT: In fact I'd like clarification on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10381398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10381398 Their post amounts to nothing more than "Intelligence research is actually 150 years old and it ended with the Holocaust". Now what do you call that? Isn't that snarky flamebait? It looks like it to me. Shouldn't that claim be toned down a little? Shouldn't it be substantiated a little more? I want to respect you but for that you will have to uphold your vetting standards equally amongst all players.