3 ms·

There is nothing good about this at all, this is class warfare and culture warfare all wrapped up together, both very bad and both ripping America, among other

by madair 17y ago

There is nothing good about this at all, this is class warfare and culture warfare all wrapped up together, both very bad and both ripping America, among other places, apart right about....now. You have absolutely no clue about this person and yet you are prejudiced against him, her, it. Is he/she/it 10 years old? You have no clue. You don't know background, you know nothing except that this person just feels that they got cheated, and they are not experienced enough to know that they are simply on the wrong page. But hey, it's okay, because you admit it, huh?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
madair 17y ago
Karma well spent. The doubled-consonants style is very popular with the 12-16 year old set right now. Congratulations on your prejudice.
- joeyo 17y ago
  Your prejudice is my Bayesian inference. In any rate, judging someone based on how they communicate is morally very different from judging them based on who they are. Communication is action, and if one cannot form opinions based on the actions of others, then indeed, what may we do? Passively observe the world go by?
  - Groxx 17y ago
    Your prejudice is my Bayesian inference. +1 for a great quote xD
  - madair 17y ago
    My prejudice against prejudicial people? It's amazing how many people think that is a good argument. Typically prejudiced people. It a common enough movie-cliche too. I.e., gambler just lost the car saying, "Don't judge me, don't judge me!"
Groxx 17y ago
The loss of all social filters is social anarchy. If you're an anarchist, then this likely appeals to you, but I'm not. We certainly have too many social filters, but having none enables malicious people to gain incredible power. Projections based on limited information are innate to not only humans, but learning in general. Sea cucumbers learn. This easily extends to projections of human behavior based on limited information, but some people view this as universally bad. Evidently, you are one of them. Enjoy your viewpoint.
- madair 17y ago
  (a) this a very likely young person that we're talking about (b) very likely un- or undereducated compared to you (c) very likely poorer than you, and that's poorer even if you live in a dorm eating ramen and (d) it's prejudice that I'm commenting on, not your social filters (e) all the evidence points to that, as I said clearly confused and frustrated person, thinking that they just signed into Facebook and wondering why it appeared to them to not work right. Are you saying that you're a bastion of clarity and even temper when you reach an impediment like that. Sure you don't spell bullshitttttt like that. So what? [Edit:] (f) It's people protecting their social values with oppression or prejudice who are quite the malicious danger, aren't they? Exhibit A: Fox News. Not so much computer illiterate youths who use a potty mouth (That is, unless I'm talking to someone who likes oppression too, unlikely but possible, as in, on the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog. ;-) But the really sad part is that lots and lots of other people are prejudiced, and they think that's a good thing. Note that I did not bring into this random correlations to other social injustices, but I ask you to consider all those many many many southern god-fearing americans who love them their prejudices, and think god gave them that right. They are protecting their culture with their social filters too.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    You do realize that A, B, and C are way more damaging and insulting prejudices than mine, right? I just prefer not to deal with people that act like that, you think they're dumb and poor.
    - 17y ago
Confusion 17y ago
You have absolutely no clue about this person If someone makes a public comment that is illegible [1] or incomprehensible, then I have a pretty good clue about that persons inability to write. Considering how close the ability to write and the ability to think are, you also have a pretty good clue about their ability to think. Of course, this all depends on the assumption the comment wasn't just a troll. [1] Or can you say that only about handwriting?
- epochwolf 17y ago
  Pretty sure illegible is only applicable to handwriting. It would mean the same as incomprehensible for typed speech, unless you want to start playing around with character set issues. ;)
- JadeNB 17y ago
  > [1] Or can you say that only about handwriting? Although something that is illegible is certainly unreadable, you have hit here on the fact that the converse is false, explaining why we need both words. (I.e.: a piece of writing is illegible if the glyphs that constitute it cannot be discovered; the unfortunate comment you found was made only of recognisable glyphs, so perfectly legible, but unreadable.)
- mishmash 17y ago
  >If someone makes a public comment that is illegible [1] or incomprehensible, then I have a pretty good clue about that persons inability to write. That's simply not true. I've worked with doctors who write emails in "lol this is for u" format, and by merit, they obviously know how to write.
palish 17y ago
I just wanted to post that I completely agree with you madair. Good for you for posting a comment even though you knew it was probably unpopular and would be mob-downvoted. I think it's a shame that HN makes it seem like your point of view is stupid and that it shouldn't be posted. That's just not true -- you have a very good point, even though it's an unpopular opinion. HN really needs to cap the downvoting threshold to 0, not -4.

by madair 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

madair 17y ago

Karma well spent. The doubled-consonants style is very popular with the 12-16 year old set right now. Congratulations on your prejudice.

joeyo 17y ago
Your prejudice is my Bayesian inference. In any rate, judging someone based on how they communicate is morally very different from judging them based on who they are. Communication is action, and if one cannot form opinions based on the actions of others, then indeed, what may we do? Passively observe the world go by?
- Groxx 17y ago
  Your prejudice is my Bayesian inference. +1 for a great quote xD
- madair 17y ago
  My prejudice against prejudicial people? It's amazing how many people think that is a good argument. Typically prejudiced people. It a common enough movie-cliche too. I.e., gambler just lost the car saying, "Don't judge me, don't judge me!"

Groxx 17y ago

The loss of all social filters is social anarchy. If you're an anarchist, then this likely appeals to you, but I'm not. We certainly have too many social filters, but having none enables malicious people to gain incredible power. Projections based on limited information are innate to not only humans, but learning in general. Sea cucumbers learn. This easily extends to projections of human behavior based on limited information, but some people view this as universally bad. Evidently, you are one of them. Enjoy your viewpoint.

madair 17y ago
(a) this a very likely young person that we're talking about (b) very likely un- or undereducated compared to you (c) very likely poorer than you, and that's poorer even if you live in a dorm eating ramen and (d) it's prejudice that I'm commenting on, not your social filters (e) all the evidence points to that, as I said clearly confused and frustrated person, thinking that they just signed into Facebook and wondering why it appeared to them to not work right. Are you saying that you're a bastion of clarity and even temper when you reach an impediment like that. Sure you don't spell bullshitttttt like that. So what? [Edit:] (f) It's people protecting their social values with oppression or prejudice who are quite the malicious danger, aren't they? Exhibit A: Fox News. Not so much computer illiterate youths who use a potty mouth (That is, unless I'm talking to someone who likes oppression too, unlikely but possible, as in, on the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog. ;-) But the really sad part is that lots and lots of other people are prejudiced, and they think that's a good thing. Note that I did not bring into this random correlations to other social injustices, but I ask you to consider all those many many many southern god-fearing americans who love them their prejudices, and think god gave them that right. They are protecting their culture with their social filters too.
- Groxx 17y ago
  You do realize that A, B, and C are way more damaging and insulting prejudices than mine, right? I just prefer not to deal with people that act like that, you think they're dumb and poor.
  - 17y ago

Confusion 17y ago

You have absolutely no clue about this person If someone makes a public comment that is illegible [1] or incomprehensible, then I have a pretty good clue about that persons inability to write. Considering how close the ability to write and the ability to think are, you also have a pretty good clue about their ability to think. Of course, this all depends on the assumption the comment wasn't just a troll. [1] Or can you say that only about handwriting?

epochwolf 17y ago
Pretty sure illegible is only applicable to handwriting. It would mean the same as incomprehensible for typed speech, unless you want to start playing around with character set issues. ;)
JadeNB 17y ago
> [1] Or can you say that only about handwriting? Although something that is illegible is certainly unreadable, you have hit here on the fact that the converse is false, explaining why we need both words. (I.e.: a piece of writing is illegible if the glyphs that constitute it cannot be discovered; the unfortunate comment you found was made only of recognisable glyphs, so perfectly legible, but unreadable.)
mishmash 17y ago
>If someone makes a public comment that is illegible [1] or incomprehensible, then I have a pretty good clue about that persons inability to write. That's simply not true. I've worked with doctors who write emails in "lol this is for u" format, and by merit, they obviously know how to write.

palish 17y ago

I just wanted to post that I completely agree with you madair. Good for you for posting a comment even though you knew it was probably unpopular and would be mob-downvoted. I think it's a shame that HN makes it seem like your point of view is stupid and that it shouldn't be posted. That's just not true -- you have a very good point, even though it's an unpopular opinion. HN really needs to cap the downvoting threshold to 0, not -4.