4 ms·
It's a factual statement, not baiting, to observe that her comment was [flagged] instantly for containing a passing "downvoting" remark, while the original comm
by gcp 10y ago
It's a factual statement, not baiting, to observe that her comment was [flagged] instantly for containing a passing "downvoting" remark, while the original comment is still one of the highest voted comments in this thread.
This confirms that, indeed, the HN audience does not see any serious problems with the statement: "Females have evolved to extract resources from males.", which is exemplified by your request to state what the problem with it is.
- stevetrewick 10y agoThe HN audience likely sees a number of potential readings in context and is interested in which particular one you and GP have chosen to reify. It's unlikely (as shown by negative comments) that the community approves or agrees with all of them.
- Chris2048 10y ago> which is exemplified by your request I requested nothing. If you care to offer you opinions do so, but do just that rather than speculate - the lack of down-votes for the above post confirms nothing, you are speculating; whereas challenging the content of the post directly might reveal more.
- gspetr 10y agoThat comment was directly at odds with HN's guidelines: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." And when Colin Percival, a widely respected member of community quoted exactly that excerpt, that person got combative and doubled down, throwing baseless accusations of some kind of MRA conspiracy. Frankly, I am disturbed by a display of such callousness, not giving people the benefit of the doubt.