3 ms·

I suspect being qualified would in this case involve doing an MA in an esoteric field like gender studies in post revolutionary France, having a large education

I suspect being qualified would in this case involve doing an MA in an esoteric field like gender studies in post revolutionary France, having a large education debt and poor writing skills, but at least being in-group. The author isn't quoting to reference that the words are verbatim (which they are often not eg [1]), but because he wants to identify as someone who disagrees with the subject's world view, to diminish and mock them. I comment on the writing style because it is jarringly poor and detracts from the argument. I thinks we are allowed to make such observations, but you are free to refrain from spending your time on counter arguments. Ugh rate limiting is killing me. Is it like 3 posts per hour or something? [1] >> The “violation” felt by thee two men at the attention of female prostitutes disrupted their ability to move about the city as they so chose, but it did not necessarily put into question their status as potential clients. Insofar as these “assaults” may have elicited a sexual response, they may have heightened their awareness of their status as sexual beings even as it challenged their gender privilege.

inimino 7y ago
> "violation" This is literally a direct reference to the use of violenté and implications discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph. > diminish and mock them I didn't read it that way at all. Interesting to see how people bring their own interpretations though.
dahart 7y ago
> I suspect being qualified would in this case involve doing an MA in an esoteric field like gender studies in post revolutionary France, having a large education debt and poor writing skills, but at least being in-group. The author of the article has a PhD in history and is a professor of history at Loyola, which took less time to Google than commenting. Your comment feels like it crosses a line, your speculation doesn’t make your argument more right. Justifying your opinion with imagined reasons makes it less likely to be valid, and reflects poorly on you. > I think we are allowed to make such observations, but you are free to refrain from spending your time on counter arguments. You are equally free to refrain from posting negative, subjective, and somewhat off-topic opinion. You can also expect such opinions to find valid disagreement. Your suggestion that you are making “observations” suggests you believe your opinion to be true, and I don’t doubt you think you’re right, but from over here it looks to me like either the subject or the author’s style is bothering you, not that the writing has any quality problems. While you are “allowed” to make any observations you like, others are allowed to disagree. The guidelines here at HN do ask that you stay on-topic, and more importantly ask commenters to not speculate or to make ad-hominem arguments against other people. So, your comment is not exactly following the suggestions of what should be allowed. Here are the specific guidelines that I believe the first sentence of your above comment crosses: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

inimino 7y ago

> "violation" This is literally a direct reference to the use of violenté and implications discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph. > diminish and mock them I didn't read it that way at all. Interesting to see how people bring their own interpretations though.

dahart 7y ago

> I suspect being qualified would in this case involve doing an MA in an esoteric field like gender studies in post revolutionary France, having a large education debt and poor writing skills, but at least being in-group. The author of the article has a PhD in history and is a professor of history at Loyola, which took less time to Google than commenting. Your comment feels like it crosses a line, your speculation doesn’t make your argument more right. Justifying your opinion with imagined reasons makes it less likely to be valid, and reflects poorly on you. > I think we are allowed to make such observations, but you are free to refrain from spending your time on counter arguments. You are equally free to refrain from posting negative, subjective, and somewhat off-topic opinion. You can also expect such opinions to find valid disagreement. Your suggestion that you are making “observations” suggests you believe your opinion to be true, and I don’t doubt you think you’re right, but from over here it looks to me like either the subject or the author’s style is bothering you, not that the writing has any quality problems. While you are “allowed” to make any observations you like, others are allowed to disagree. The guidelines here at HN do ask that you stay on-topic, and more importantly ask commenters to not speculate or to make ad-hominem arguments against other people. So, your comment is not exactly following the suggestions of what should be allowed. Here are the specific guidelines that I believe the first sentence of your above comment crosses: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html