3 ms·

Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted wi

Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. But you were just being a contrarian troll.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
>Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. No accusations needed. HN is far less likely to be an echo chamber on these subjects; which is why I had to pull a big gun out like climate change; which was referenced multiple times in the article. >But you were just being a contrarian troll. Still further proof of the point of the article. Climate Change A United Nations panel of climate scientists says it is at least 95 percent certain that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change since the mid-20th century. Climate sceptics challenge that consensus daily on social media, arguing that fluctuations in global temperatures have occurred in previous era and are natural events. The article absolutely talked about climate change in depth and even brought up climate skeptics. I simply brought up a single point of discussion. The point of the article is that it has become toxic to talk about subjects like climate change. I simply provided the example and you come call me a troll. Literally proving the point.
- phonypc 8y ago
  The article does not talk about climate change in depth. It briefly mentions climate skepticism as an example of "Social media platforms have supercharged battles over scientific evidence" and implicitly compares it to the CFS activism which is the subject of the article, as well as anti-vaccine and anti-GMO activism. Proving the point of the article with respect to climate change would have involved posting the consensus view, and that starting a toxic discussion. But you just made a toxic post from the get-go.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago

>Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. No accusations needed. HN is far less likely to be an echo chamber on these subjects; which is why I had to pull a big gun out like climate change; which was referenced multiple times in the article. >But you were just being a contrarian troll. Still further proof of the point of the article. Climate Change A United Nations panel of climate scientists says it is at least 95 percent certain that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change since the mid-20th century. Climate sceptics challenge that consensus daily on social media, arguing that fluctuations in global temperatures have occurred in previous era and are natural events. The article absolutely talked about climate change in depth and even brought up climate skeptics. I simply brought up a single point of discussion. The point of the article is that it has become toxic to talk about subjects like climate change. I simply provided the example and you come call me a troll. Literally proving the point.

phonypc 8y ago
The article does not talk about climate change in depth. It briefly mentions climate skepticism as an example of "Social media platforms have supercharged battles over scientific evidence" and implicitly compares it to the CFS activism which is the subject of the article, as well as anti-vaccine and anti-GMO activism. Proving the point of the article with respect to climate change would have involved posting the consensus view, and that starting a toxic discussion. But you just made a toxic post from the get-go.