3 ms·

I really don't like the internet and humanity in general for threads like this. Calling a particular person names like navie, idiot, gaslighter, corrupt, fool,

I really don't like the internet and humanity in general for threads like this. Calling a particular person names like navie, idiot, gaslighter, corrupt, fool, greedy, insane, malicious, patsy, disingenuous, child, disgusting, unethical, etc, the way people in this thread have, is never a good thing. It's really not cool when the target is a person. Receiving dozens of people angrily accusing you of evil is upsetting, and can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. I've seen people experience it. You may not care about this person's welfare, but you should, if you want to be an ethical human being. It also doesn't help any idea you think you have, but it reinforces you emotionally to believe it, even on the really rare chance that you might not have expert information, and are just reacting to your limited understanding of a subject. And it galvanizes opinions (your own, and of others) because of how the emotion and anger is shared by so many people. It makes you believe all the things people are saying, and you don't even stop to think critically. I know, because I too have decided to agree with the crowd here before when they dog-piled on others, only to find out the opinion everyone had (including my own) was pitifully inaccurate. I later wanted to provide some correction, but good luck fighting a mob when it wants to feel right.

fractalf 7y ago
I agree that in general name calling and personal attacks are no good. BUT, the word used in this thread aren't that harsh, come on. We're not made of glass. If you make a really idiotic choise don't cry when someone calls you an idiot.
dboreham 7y ago
Unfortunately gaslighting evil intentioned people take advantage of sentiments like these.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
Sorry, but no. He is not just a random guy off the street, he is in a responsible public position, and this is already his defense, so it is reasonable to think that this is the best he could come up with to defend his decision, it's not some misinterpreted tweet that was taken out of context. Also, I have not seen anyone advocating for hurting him, which would obviously be out of place, but you can not take on the responsibility for a public good worth billions and then expect exceedingly friendly treatment when you completely fuck it up because you didn't care to exercise even a minimal amount of diligence, in the best case. And while "idiot" or "fool" might not be neutral terms, they are still terms that at their core describe his actions in this case (assuming it wasn't corruption), it's not just random name calling to degrade a person. Now, if there really is an explanation how all of this is in the public interest, sure, bring it forward, and push it to the front page of HN, I certainly would want to know. But the mere fact that even the best-founded judgement could always turn out to be completely wrong after all based on new evidence is not a reason to hold back criticism when there is solid evidence supporting that criticism, because the theoretical possibility does not mean it is actually likely or common.

fractalf 7y ago

I agree that in general name calling and personal attacks are no good. BUT, the word used in this thread aren't that harsh, come on. We're not made of glass. If you make a really idiotic choise don't cry when someone calls you an idiot.

dboreham 7y ago

Unfortunately gaslighting evil intentioned people take advantage of sentiments like these.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

Sorry, but no. He is not just a random guy off the street, he is in a responsible public position, and this is already his defense, so it is reasonable to think that this is the best he could come up with to defend his decision, it's not some misinterpreted tweet that was taken out of context. Also, I have not seen anyone advocating for hurting him, which would obviously be out of place, but you can not take on the responsibility for a public good worth billions and then expect exceedingly friendly treatment when you completely fuck it up because you didn't care to exercise even a minimal amount of diligence, in the best case. And while "idiot" or "fool" might not be neutral terms, they are still terms that at their core describe his actions in this case (assuming it wasn't corruption), it's not just random name calling to degrade a person. Now, if there really is an explanation how all of this is in the public interest, sure, bring it forward, and push it to the front page of HN, I certainly would want to know. But the mere fact that even the best-founded judgement could always turn out to be completely wrong after all based on new evidence is not a reason to hold back criticism when there is solid evidence supporting that criticism, because the theoretical possibility does not mean it is actually likely or common.