4 ms·

And after you've started it, yes, this submission is off-topic. You may be surprised but there exist people who are not overwhelmed by the intellectual weight o

by 1gor 17y ago

And after you've started it, yes, this submission is off-topic. You may be surprised but there exist people who are not overwhelmed by the intellectual weight of The New Yorker. Also, there are people who have strong views about gay marriage, not necessarily aligned with yours or The New Yorker's. Just imagine what would happen if these people started forcefully expressing and defending their views on this thread?

plinkplonk 17y ago
"Just imagine what would happen if these people started forcefully expressing and defending their views on this thread?" The best way to avoid this fate is to flag such articles into oblivion. "Anything from the New Yorker is basically automatically on topic because of its intellectual weight." That's the stupidest rationale for a submission I've ever read on HN. What is "on topic" for an HN submission has nothing to do with who wrote it. And no one has automatic "intellectual weight" for anything they write. The fact that you have to make such a logic free statement indicates that you know you are trolling/ karma whoring. I guess it is fine to occasionally test the strength of HN's immune system.
- 1gor 17y ago
  you know you are trolling/ karma whoring. Is this in reply to my comment or the parent?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - rms 17y ago
    I think he meant to reply to me since he quotes my post.
- rms 17y ago
  Can you show me when the New Yorker has published a recent journalistic article that has been wrong? Karma whoring? Trolling? It's been a while since anyone actually accused me of trolling, but this is a meta-discussion worth having.
rms 17y ago
OK, intellectual weight is basically a meaningless word. One thing I was trying to indicate was page length. Hacker News could use more really long articles, generally they are higher quality. I think the New Yorker is a well-written, basically authoritative source with regards to journalism. See their excellent article that makes a complete case that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man executed by the USA. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_... Are there any New Yorker journalism articles that lack sufficient weight to be considered correct? I'm not talking about their movie reviews. What makes this article Hacker News material is that while discussing a mainstream, inflammatory, emotional topic, it is much closer to the truth than anything you are likely to hear on the TV news. Finally, if people have strong opinions, they should be allowed to express them. Maybe we'll all learn something. The downmodding and moderation system mostly works here.

by 1gor 17y ago

plinkplonk 17y ago

"Just imagine what would happen if these people started forcefully expressing and defending their views on this thread?" The best way to avoid this fate is to flag such articles into oblivion. "Anything from the New Yorker is basically automatically on topic because of its intellectual weight." That's the stupidest rationale for a submission I've ever read on HN. What is "on topic" for an HN submission has nothing to do with who wrote it. And no one has automatic "intellectual weight" for anything they write. The fact that you have to make such a logic free statement indicates that you know you are trolling/ karma whoring. I guess it is fine to occasionally test the strength of HN's immune system.

1gor 17y ago
you know you are trolling/ karma whoring. Is this in reply to my comment or the parent?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- rms 17y ago
  I think he meant to reply to me since he quotes my post.
rms 17y ago
Can you show me when the New Yorker has published a recent journalistic article that has been wrong? Karma whoring? Trolling? It's been a while since anyone actually accused me of trolling, but this is a meta-discussion worth having.

rms 17y ago

OK, intellectual weight is basically a meaningless word. One thing I was trying to indicate was page length. Hacker News could use more really long articles, generally they are higher quality. I think the New Yorker is a well-written, basically authoritative source with regards to journalism. See their excellent article that makes a complete case that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man executed by the USA. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_... Are there any New Yorker journalism articles that lack sufficient weight to be considered correct? I'm not talking about their movie reviews. What makes this article Hacker News material is that while discussing a mainstream, inflammatory, emotional topic, it is much closer to the truth than anything you are likely to hear on the TV news. Finally, if people have strong opinions, they should be allowed to express them. Maybe we'll all learn something. The downmodding and moderation system mostly works here.