3 ms·

What exactly did he plagiarize, and where is the documentation of that? If it's about giving credit where credit is due, I don't see how just destroying Appelba

What exactly did he plagiarize, and where is the documentation of that? If it's about giving credit where credit is due, I don't see how just destroying Appelbaum as a "plagiarist" really helps there. I guess my problem is: even assuming all charges are true, the way this is done, and the way it's nodded off by people in the name of being decent (less questions asked = more decent?), while others dismiss it as some SJW stunt or conspiracy or whatever, is just a horrible precedent to me. This all out attack on the totality of a person, this "creating facts on the ground", and this binary dichotomy of "only one party can ever be in the wrong", the extreme polarization. For what it's worth, I know how being gas-lighted feels, I know how it is to see someone go from friendly to snarling with utmost hatred back to friendly. I don't feel like sharing all that, but that's kind of how I know a bit about sociopathy and narcissism to begin with, I had to learn. But that's also why that website kind of struck me as kind of weird, since it talks about sociopathy yet seems not only kind of devoid of compassion, but also reckless, seeing how the destruction of Appelbaum seems to be intended to be total and forever. As in, just because he's no good as a "community leader", who cares what happens to the human being - he didn't care either, he started it after all. No fair judge and no psychologist worth crap would talk like that, and that's why such things should be left to both ultimately. Even sociopaths are people, even after having been clinically diagnosed. Human rights apply even to those who don't afford them to others. This is a principle that is more important than anything else. EVEN if you have to disarm a person, set boundaries, and so on, there is never a point where they're just fair game for anything. You know how free speech is about protecting the speech you despise? Same goes for human rights. Believing in due process for the innocent is easy, believing in due process of a serial killer, now that's where it starts to become more adult, and there is no crime so atrocious the perpetrator loses their status as human being. We know this is hard to grasp for many people, but when "hackers" start forgetting that as well, that's troubling. So I am really not liking this whole thing as it stands, and am also not liking this dichotomy of "either you believe it or don't", since I'd still have all the above questions or objections even granting every claim is 100% true. And the shaming of people who reserve judgement or ask for any evidence, or more substance in general, in light of such a huge, all out attack, also sucks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, people can "command" their personal friends to "not question, just hug" when that's all they can take (and I don't mean that snarkily, honestly), but that's not something a society or justice can operate on. His character has been effectively assassinated, no matter what comes of this most people who saw that may never see the follow-up, and we can't even ask questions? You can't take abuse seriously and then say "nothing you do to an abuser is ever abuse", that's not justice.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
So I get several downvotes, but not a single response so far, neither to this nor here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11839033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11839033 Also not one word about what might be wrong about what I said or asked. This is quite incredible. And even if more substance comes forth, which I hope -- and I mean that, because it's not that I don't believe the claims at all -- that precedent kind of remains. When I say I find this, in the way and excess it's done, wrong even assuming the claims are true, I do mean that -- and if you disagree, then you should argue the point, ignoring and downvoting me just substantiates it.
- werthersOrigin 10y ago
  As a total stranger on The Inernet, I'll reply. So, people saying things on the internet, in the press, out in the world, in many ways are permitted to speak freely. Anecdotes and personal opinions are permitted in civilized discourse, when the context is not a legal court of law. All this is just so much gossip, and it's people blowing off pent up steam, and airing out frustration. Big deal. Reputations are on the line, and not much else. this "creating facts on the ground" That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That person says what they saw. That they've claimed facts to be true, is a fact on its own, and there's nothing earth shattering in any of these sour grapes getting squished. The real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. Not all statements are clinical diagnostics. As a dippy-doo in the peanut gallery, I don't feel very polarized. The internet flops about, and flippity floops, and so what?
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That's hardly describes all that is going on here. > Reputations are on the line, and not much else. "Not much else", right. Can you tell me what would be at stake for the people to actually argue like adults, instead of ignoring and downvoting and handwaving? With any random technical subject any remotely valid question gets discussed, and now you're trying to tell me this is normal, that this isn't a shit show? > he real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. So you're essentially saying you don't care because you don't care. You can call that a reply, if you want. Something you signed up for with a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself, "inspiring" a wave of suicides. The only signal sending is a bit of creepyness, the rest is just noise. > Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. What does that even mean? Is it really so much to ask to have at least the plagiarism claims backed up? You see, ignoring that, while claiming he ruined so many people, including someone who killed themselves (as a result? as result of completely unrelated things?), that also says something. > People get over it. People would also get over having haven answered in earnest, or not not downvoting things they can't or don't want to address. HN would totally survive having one story about this that doesn't get flagged, you know? So don't tell me to take this virtual lynching lightly, while you don't mind people apparently having huge issues with very simple questions.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

So I get several downvotes, but not a single response so far, neither to this nor here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11839033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11839033 Also not one word about what might be wrong about what I said or asked. This is quite incredible. And even if more substance comes forth, which I hope -- and I mean that, because it's not that I don't believe the claims at all -- that precedent kind of remains. When I say I find this, in the way and excess it's done, wrong even assuming the claims are true, I do mean that -- and if you disagree, then you should argue the point, ignoring and downvoting me just substantiates it.

werthersOrigin 10y ago
As a total stranger on The Inernet, I'll reply. So, people saying things on the internet, in the press, out in the world, in many ways are permitted to speak freely. Anecdotes and personal opinions are permitted in civilized discourse, when the context is not a legal court of law. All this is just so much gossip, and it's people blowing off pent up steam, and airing out frustration. Big deal. Reputations are on the line, and not much else. this "creating facts on the ground" That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That person says what they saw. That they've claimed facts to be true, is a fact on its own, and there's nothing earth shattering in any of these sour grapes getting squished. The real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. Not all statements are clinical diagnostics. As a dippy-doo in the peanut gallery, I don't feel very polarized. The internet flops about, and flippity floops, and so what?
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That's hardly describes all that is going on here. > Reputations are on the line, and not much else. "Not much else", right. Can you tell me what would be at stake for the people to actually argue like adults, instead of ignoring and downvoting and handwaving? With any random technical subject any remotely valid question gets discussed, and now you're trying to tell me this is normal, that this isn't a shit show? > he real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. So you're essentially saying you don't care because you don't care. You can call that a reply, if you want. Something you signed up for with a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself, "inspiring" a wave of suicides. The only signal sending is a bit of creepyness, the rest is just noise. > Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. What does that even mean? Is it really so much to ask to have at least the plagiarism claims backed up? You see, ignoring that, while claiming he ruined so many people, including someone who killed themselves (as a result? as result of completely unrelated things?), that also says something. > People get over it. People would also get over having haven answered in earnest, or not not downvoting things they can't or don't want to address. HN would totally survive having one story about this that doesn't get flagged, you know? So don't tell me to take this virtual lynching lightly, while you don't mind people apparently having huge issues with very simple questions.