5 ms·
I was responding to this original assertion: > once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority ...with a re
by dionidium 10y ago
I was responding to this original assertion:
> once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority
...with a rebuttal that argues against drawing that conclusion on the basis that uncomfortable discoveries do not imply a hierarchy.
In other words -- and note how absurd this is -- you're saying that my position, which is that differences need not and should not imply a hierarchy, implies not only that I do think there is a hierarchy, but that it's a hierarchy with whites on top.
You drew the exact opposite conclusion from very plain words.
Bluntly: the game you're playing -- you're a white supremacist until you say otherwise! -- is gross. I've said absolutely nothing to imply that I am one. (Again, I actually said exactly the opposite.) Your attempt to hold me hostage is absurd.
And before you respond that I still haven't denied it: Knock it off. This is not how adults disagree.
- delazeur 10y ago> Bluntly: the game you're playing -- you're a white supremacist until you say otherwise! -- is gross. I've said absolutely nothing to imply that I am one. Your attempt to hold me hostage is absurd. I think I've been fairly clear about what I'm saying, and that's not it. What I am saying is that you are either a white supremacist or a terrible communicator. Frankly I'm surprised you are willing to toe the line this closely with an account that is personally identifiable. > And before you respond that I still haven't denied it: Knock it off. This is not how adults disagree. Mr. Burkett, you have littered this thread with short, asinine replies that carefully avoid engaging with anyone's arguments. You are not in a position to be accusing anyone of childishness.
- dionidium 10y ago>Frankly I'm surprised you are willing to toe the line this closely with an account that is personally identifiable. It's only surprising to you because you're ascribing to me views I don't hold. Second, though my details are in my profile, your use of my name is clearly meant to be threatening and is therefore over the line. A comment like that is simply out of line.
- delazeur 10y ago> It's only surprising to you because you're ascribing to me views I don't hold. Fine, you're just a terrible communicator then. > Second, though my details are in my profile, your use of my name is clearly meant to be threatening and is therefore over the line. Bullshit. For a guy who demands that everything he writes be taken 100% literally, you sure are quick to read extraneous meaning into what I wrote.
- dang 10y agoYou've both broken the HN guidelines egregiously in this thread. That's unacceptable. Please stop, and please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- dang 10y agoIt's a serious violation of the rules here to bring in someone's personal details as ammunition in an argument, regardless of how wrong they are. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- delazeur 10y agoWe have both clearly broken the civility rule and I apologize for my part in it, but if someone chooses to identify themselves I don't see how it's uncivil to address them by name. Indeed, I see it done fairly regularly here on HN.