5 ms·

I'm missing the point.

by rfrank 10y ago

wmeredith 10y ago
I think the point being made is his actions are understandable in context.
- rfrank 10y ago
  And I think that is incorrect, and spez's actions are inexcusable.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Ah, ok, so you're saying if i managed to convince a a few youtube personalities that you're a child trafficker and they talked to their audience and invited them to attack you over it, and the thousands hound you for a month over it on every possible venue you might frequent, including actually calling your home for the lulz, you'd be an emotionless rock and vulcan overlord with not so much a twitch as a reaction, despite things being actively and effectively disrupting for your personal and professional life for a month. Is that it?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 10y ago
      What part of "free speech" do you not understand? Is I think how the rest of this argument goes, ad infinitum.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Man, i can't tell which one of us you just brutally owned. Edit: Ok, i got it, and i salute you, good sir. :D
      - samstave 10y ago
        /u/spez is free to say whatever he wants. He is not-excused of literally editing another persons' post. If I am in a room with you and you say something verbally, and I say a contrarian/different view - it does not edit YOUR statement just made. /u/spez editing others' comments is not "free speech" its the opposite.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm not going to respond to comments that aren't specific about what Huffman did. He didn't randomly edit comments. Be specific, and I'll respond. Or, you know, argue with someone else on HN. I'm of no particular importance here.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      By his own admission he's had user mentions turned off for years. Avoiding trolls isn't nearly as hard as people here are making it seem. If you don't want to deal with trolling, don't become the CEO of reddit immediately after their ridiculous community ousted Ellen Pao. The mainstream media and an awful lot of the internet (including the majority of users on this site) paint Trump supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, etc. on a daily basis, but calling spez a pedo is somehow beyond the pale? And that justifies him editing user posts to appear as if they've said something they haven't?
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        > Avoiding trolls isn't nearly as hard as people here are making it seem If you truly believe this then you're amazingly ignorant. I'd rather believe you're trolling on this matter than imagine someone this ignorant. Also, feel free to answer on this, but i don't believe i'll be arsed to respond to you further.
        rfrank 10y ago
        If you truly believe internet randos are some unstoppable force of human nature, then you're amazingly ignorant, and probably cripplingly sensitive. That must suck, sorry about that.
      - intopieces 10y ago
        >The mainstream media and an awful lot of the internet (including the majority of users on this site) paint Trump supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, etc. on a daily basis, but calling spez a pedo is somehow beyond the pale? Racism, sexism, homophobia and lack of education are not crimes, and never imply criminal activity that police actively investigate. Pedophilia is not a crime but implies a proclivity towards actions that are a crime and that police actively investigate. Yes, implying or directly accusing someone of harboring an innate proclivity for sexually abusing children does exceed in severity accusations of racial, gender, or anti-gay bias or lack of education. That people who proudly and on national media flaunt these attributes in themselves is evidence of such.

I'm missing the point.

by rfrank 10y ago

I'm missing the point.

wmeredith 10y ago

I think the point being made is his actions are understandable in context.

rfrank 10y ago
And I think that is incorrect, and spez's actions are inexcusable.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Ah, ok, so you're saying if i managed to convince a a few youtube personalities that you're a child trafficker and they talked to their audience and invited them to attack you over it, and the thousands hound you for a month over it on every possible venue you might frequent, including actually calling your home for the lulz, you'd be an emotionless rock and vulcan overlord with not so much a twitch as a reaction, despite things being actively and effectively disrupting for your personal and professional life for a month. Is that it?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 10y ago
    What part of "free speech" do you not understand? Is I think how the rest of this argument goes, ad infinitum.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Man, i can't tell which one of us you just brutally owned. Edit: Ok, i got it, and i salute you, good sir. :D
    - samstave 10y ago
      /u/spez is free to say whatever he wants. He is not-excused of literally editing another persons' post. If I am in a room with you and you say something verbally, and I say a contrarian/different view - it does not edit YOUR statement just made. /u/spez editing others' comments is not "free speech" its the opposite.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I'm not going to respond to comments that aren't specific about what Huffman did. He didn't randomly edit comments. Be specific, and I'll respond. Or, you know, argue with someone else on HN. I'm of no particular importance here.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    By his own admission he's had user mentions turned off for years. Avoiding trolls isn't nearly as hard as people here are making it seem. If you don't want to deal with trolling, don't become the CEO of reddit immediately after their ridiculous community ousted Ellen Pao. The mainstream media and an awful lot of the internet (including the majority of users on this site) paint Trump supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, etc. on a daily basis, but calling spez a pedo is somehow beyond the pale? And that justifies him editing user posts to appear as if they've said something they haven't?
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      > Avoiding trolls isn't nearly as hard as people here are making it seem If you truly believe this then you're amazingly ignorant. I'd rather believe you're trolling on this matter than imagine someone this ignorant. Also, feel free to answer on this, but i don't believe i'll be arsed to respond to you further.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        If you truly believe internet randos are some unstoppable force of human nature, then you're amazingly ignorant, and probably cripplingly sensitive. That must suck, sorry about that.
    - intopieces 10y ago
      >The mainstream media and an awful lot of the internet (including the majority of users on this site) paint Trump supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, etc. on a daily basis, but calling spez a pedo is somehow beyond the pale? Racism, sexism, homophobia and lack of education are not crimes, and never imply criminal activity that police actively investigate. Pedophilia is not a crime but implies a proclivity towards actions that are a crime and that police actively investigate. Yes, implying or directly accusing someone of harboring an innate proclivity for sexually abusing children does exceed in severity accusations of racial, gender, or anti-gay bias or lack of education. That people who proudly and on national media flaunt these attributes in themselves is evidence of such.