3 ms·

Except it isn't only about winning. Otherwise, we'd have no objective advancements in medicine. Saying it's ONLY about winning is just as absurd as thinking i

Except it isn't only about winning. Otherwise, we'd have no objective advancements in medicine. Saying it's ONLY about winning is just as absurd as thinking it's only about solving the problem. It's about solving problems within the system. That includes winning and a lot of other elements.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I didn't say that was the only goal. The politicians, the newspaper editors, the online trolls, etc. are all people too and probably want to see everyone get good healthcare at good prices but they're so busy advancing their vision of how that should happen that we can't actually have productive discourse because nobody can change their opinion on any detail.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  > The politicians, the newspaper editors, the online trolls, etc. are all people too and probably want to see everyone get good healthcare at good prices So then it's a good idea to remind people of the absurd, as in the post you answered. Dismissing the absurd as merely being a consequence of not 'thinking about winning' is an oversimplification. To me such a dismissive, one liner post is designed for ego-gratification, rather than real in depth discussion. No offense, we all do it. Just saying my perspective. Maybe I'm missing the in depth part though.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    The poster you are replying to is a troll, likely. I'd disengage with the poster and not continue the conversation, as they do not tend to comment 'in good faith'. Their HN profile bio as of 8pm GMT states: "When you read a HN article about some despot in a foreign land having the intellectuals lined up and shot it seems irrational. When you read the comments and you realize the despot might be on to something." 'Ironic' calls to do violence to others for their beliefs and words do not let one assume that the person calling for such pseudo-violence is trying to anything other than get a rise out of people. I'd suggest cat videos instead of wasting time with them.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I understand you're going to use the least charitable reading because you disagree with me but it was supposed to be a comment about the quality of discourse in internet comments.
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        Have you thought of the irony between the quote, your explanation and the comments you post? I looked at the last 5-10 comments in your history. Two comments were for articles you clearly didn't read. Others are quick sound bytes thrown at people digging at the truth. It's like your trying to be cool. I think HN is loved because here there is a higher percentage of people making long, well thought out comments AFTER reading the article. And the comments are generally aimed at furthering understanding, not people's individual ego. Doesn't always happen, but I find it happens here more than anywhere else I've found. I invite you to contribute in the same line, that's what makes this place special for me.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I didn't say that was the only goal. The politicians, the newspaper editors, the online trolls, etc. are all people too and probably want to see everyone get good healthcare at good prices but they're so busy advancing their vision of how that should happen that we can't actually have productive discourse because nobody can change their opinion on any detail.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
> The politicians, the newspaper editors, the online trolls, etc. are all people too and probably want to see everyone get good healthcare at good prices So then it's a good idea to remind people of the absurd, as in the post you answered. Dismissing the absurd as merely being a consequence of not 'thinking about winning' is an oversimplification. To me such a dismissive, one liner post is designed for ego-gratification, rather than real in depth discussion. No offense, we all do it. Just saying my perspective. Maybe I'm missing the in depth part though.
- Balgair 7y ago
  The poster you are replying to is a troll, likely. I'd disengage with the poster and not continue the conversation, as they do not tend to comment 'in good faith'. Their HN profile bio as of 8pm GMT states: "When you read a HN article about some despot in a foreign land having the intellectuals lined up and shot it seems irrational. When you read the comments and you realize the despot might be on to something." 'Ironic' calls to do violence to others for their beliefs and words do not let one assume that the person calling for such pseudo-violence is trying to anything other than get a rise out of people. I'd suggest cat videos instead of wasting time with them.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    I understand you're going to use the least charitable reading because you disagree with me but it was supposed to be a comment about the quality of discourse in internet comments.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Have you thought of the irony between the quote, your explanation and the comments you post? I looked at the last 5-10 comments in your history. Two comments were for articles you clearly didn't read. Others are quick sound bytes thrown at people digging at the truth. It's like your trying to be cool. I think HN is loved because here there is a higher percentage of people making long, well thought out comments AFTER reading the article. And the comments are generally aimed at furthering understanding, not people's individual ego. Doesn't always happen, but I find it happens here more than anywhere else I've found. I invite you to contribute in the same line, that's what makes this place special for me.