4 ms·
> (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.) Amazing your comment is top—given you didn't read the article. > The man deserved what he g
by forloop 10y ago
> (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.)
Amazing your comment is top—given you didn't read the article.
> The man deserved what he got
From what I've seen (I'm no expert on the subject), that's debatable.
- jjnoakes 10y agoWait, missing one mention equates to not reading the entire article? Amazing indeed.
- nardi 10y ago"Milo" appears nine times in the article. The discussion about him is a large part of the content.
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoTo be fair, the points about that person were almost near the end after heavy points about the product, it "felt" like conclusion territory which I often skip if I've gotten the point already, and to be honest, I about ran out of steam by that point too. Is it so crazy to imagine that someone reads an article that makes its point quite clearly even before the conclusion, and comments upon it after reading solely its meat? Hell, I almost closed the article once I saw that person's name, even. A lot of people here just are snapping to criticize over this, which is oddly reminiscent of a subtext of the article, not doing this comment section any favors, and specifically discussed in the HN guidelines. Now that I've made a substantive comment: who cares, seriously?
- forloop 10y ago> Wait, missing one mention equates to not reading the entire article? Amazing indeed. See nardi's comment. Amazing indeed!
- ivraatiems 10y agoI noted that I didn't read that section, apologized to the first person to point it out, and edited my comment to reflect it. The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example.
- forloop 10y ago> > I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation You make reference to your first paragraph (see above) as being to do with Milo. The second para is about Milo. That's The majority of your comment. You sir, are a liar. Addendum: Presume I'm getting downvoted for calling the OP a liar. It's literally what he did. It's in writing.
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoNo, you were getting downvoted because of your indignant hysteria and outright harassment of a commenter over something completely irrelevant, and now I suspect that will transition to being downvoted for complaining about downvoting. Don't do either.
- forloop 10y ago> indignant hysteria Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie. > outright harassment I'll come back to this. > a commenter over something completely irrelevant OK. From OP: "The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency." From the article: "However, the decision to ban Milo because of the actions of a few of his 500,000 followers (if that is indeed why this occurred) is horribly inconsistent." Both of these statements are semantically similar—there is inconsistency. That's an example of where the comment is low quality due to the OP not reading the article. So I reject that it's irrelevant. Back to the harassment. I stated facts as plainly as I could. If he/she finds facts intimidating then I would say it's on the OP to examine what he/she said & did, and not on me to ignore or use mental gymnastics to defend incorrect statements.
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173610 and marked it off-topic.