6 ms·

The parent comment it's replying to says: > That said the primary “imbalanced exposure” seems to be due to evicting people who simply spend their time attackin

The parent comment it's replying to says: > That said the primary “imbalanced exposure” seems to be due to evicting people who simply spend their time attacking minorities, attack equal rights, and promoting violence towards anyone that they dislike. For whatever reason the Republican Party seems to have decided that those people represent “conservative” views that private companies should have to support. How is that also not "tedious, partisan and uncivil"? Not only is it not flagged, it's upvoted.

krapp 8y ago
The trope of "x (thing liberals/leftists/feminists/democrats have done) is the reason for Trump's election" has become a tired cliche at this point, and RemarkEon's comment was just that and a dismissal without any evidence or support for their argument. The parent was partisan, yes, but at least it presented an argument. Maybe it shouldn't have been flagged, but it deserved to be downvoted. Whether downvoted comments deserve to be edited out is another matter - I've been complaining about that for years but Hacker News is never going to change that. Unfortunately there's no way to downvote someone here without also censoring them globally, and HN is designed so that only a few downvotes have a massive effect on readability.
- ignoramceisblis 8y ago
  You're being hypocritical. The parent comment by "olliej" presented absolutely no argument for their statements: > That said the primary “imbalanced exposure” seems to be due to evicting people who simply spend their time attacking minorities, attack equal rights, and promoting violence towards anyone that they dislike. > For whatever reason the Republican Party seems to have decided that those people represent “conservative” views that private companies should have to support. Again, remarkEon was simply pointing out the fact that "olliej" _presented no argument_, and was giving another tired example of grossly misrepresenting conservatives. "olliej"'s comment literally was evidence for remarkEon's comment. A comment on the pathetic hypocritical state of discourse today.
  - krapp 8y ago
    You know what? You're right. The more I look at them, the more similar they seem in tone and quality.
    - ignoramceisblis 8y ago
      Not that my opinion should hold much weight, but: I truly appreciate your candor. (As a general statement,) I, and many others, only wish to have reasonable, rational discussions. It's impossible to do that when there exist people who seek to subvert those constructive discussions by simply branding people--who they very likely know next to nothing about--and then inferring all sorts of (incorrect) beliefs from those brands (e.g. "conservative"). We would all benefit from not jumping to conclusions. And from having access to the truth, undistorted.
      - krapp 8y ago
        I don't think people are trying to subvert constructive discussion, rather, people have a low bar for what they consider constructive for certain subjects.
        ignoramceisblis 8y ago
        I agree. I also feel that the majority of people have a low bar for that, like you say; I don't suspect most people consciously try to subvert constructive discussion, but I do know that's a tactic employed by a small minority.

krapp 8y ago

The trope of "x (thing liberals/leftists/feminists/democrats have done) is the reason for Trump's election" has become a tired cliche at this point, and RemarkEon's comment was just that and a dismissal without any evidence or support for their argument. The parent was partisan, yes, but at least it presented an argument. Maybe it shouldn't have been flagged, but it deserved to be downvoted. Whether downvoted comments deserve to be edited out is another matter - I've been complaining about that for years but Hacker News is never going to change that. Unfortunately there's no way to downvote someone here without also censoring them globally, and HN is designed so that only a few downvotes have a massive effect on readability.

ignoramceisblis 8y ago
You're being hypocritical. The parent comment by "olliej" presented absolutely no argument for their statements: > That said the primary “imbalanced exposure” seems to be due to evicting people who simply spend their time attacking minorities, attack equal rights, and promoting violence towards anyone that they dislike. > For whatever reason the Republican Party seems to have decided that those people represent “conservative” views that private companies should have to support. Again, remarkEon was simply pointing out the fact that "olliej" _presented no argument_, and was giving another tired example of grossly misrepresenting conservatives. "olliej"'s comment literally was evidence for remarkEon's comment. A comment on the pathetic hypocritical state of discourse today.
- krapp 8y ago
  You know what? You're right. The more I look at them, the more similar they seem in tone and quality.
  - ignoramceisblis 8y ago
    Not that my opinion should hold much weight, but: I truly appreciate your candor. (As a general statement,) I, and many others, only wish to have reasonable, rational discussions. It's impossible to do that when there exist people who seek to subvert those constructive discussions by simply branding people--who they very likely know next to nothing about--and then inferring all sorts of (incorrect) beliefs from those brands (e.g. "conservative"). We would all benefit from not jumping to conclusions. And from having access to the truth, undistorted.
    - krapp 8y ago
      I don't think people are trying to subvert constructive discussion, rather, people have a low bar for what they consider constructive for certain subjects.
      - ignoramceisblis 8y ago
        I agree. I also feel that the majority of people have a low bar for that, like you say; I don't suspect most people consciously try to subvert constructive discussion, but I do know that's a tactic employed by a small minority.