3 ms·

Ah, there's the comment I was expecting to find. Somebody assuming the author's political alignment based on the (awful) Tweets they chose to highlight. You cla

Ah, there's the comment I was expecting to find. Somebody assuming the author's political alignment based on the (awful) Tweets they chose to highlight. You claim to hold the same political views as him, so what are you trying to achieve? More internet points? I found the article to be objective, included good sourced examples, and addressed a serious problem that has been discussed on HN many times before. The blue check mark system is terrible. It unconsciously makes readers trust the claims and assertions made by those that wield them. And as demonstrated in the article, blue-check-marked Tweeter often make horribly unverified claims, or incite outright violence. Both of these things I hope would be condemned by every side of the political spectrum, regardless or who is saying them.

kick 7y ago
He takes several obvious and blatant jokes seriously, and he does this because not long ago, two right- and right-libertarian outlets with relatively large audiences posted pieces intentionally misinterpreting them, practically admitting to doing so in the pieces. At best, the bad faith seems to be lost on him, of course. The only thing worse than someone on an opposing side to you making a horrendous argument is someone on your own side making a grotesque one, and that's what he's doing here. His "point" is completely invalidated by the examples he used, which (notably) are all jokes, bar one. It only takes someone with the most basic amount of social competency to tell that. It, later, is invalidated further by his claim that "rubes can figure out how to sift through b/s," which he demonstrates to be wrong with the contents of his post. I don't think that twitter should be creating hierarchy on its site, and I'm far from against him politically: an abhorrent argument is still an abhorrent argument, though, and anti-intellectualism like this should be spoken out against wherever it appears, regardless of whose side it's on. This type of person making this type of argument devalues the side they're on as a whole, and should be strongly pushed out. And that's not even getting into the idea that a corporate blog should stray away from overtly-political posts.

kick 7y ago

He takes several obvious and blatant jokes seriously, and he does this because not long ago, two right- and right-libertarian outlets with relatively large audiences posted pieces intentionally misinterpreting them, practically admitting to doing so in the pieces. At best, the bad faith seems to be lost on him, of course. The only thing worse than someone on an opposing side to you making a horrendous argument is someone on your own side making a grotesque one, and that's what he's doing here. His "point" is completely invalidated by the examples he used, which (notably) are all jokes, bar one. It only takes someone with the most basic amount of social competency to tell that. It, later, is invalidated further by his claim that "rubes can figure out how to sift through b/s," which he demonstrates to be wrong with the contents of his post. I don't think that twitter should be creating hierarchy on its site, and I'm far from against him politically: an abhorrent argument is still an abhorrent argument, though, and anti-intellectualism like this should be spoken out against wherever it appears, regardless of whose side it's on. This type of person making this type of argument devalues the side they're on as a whole, and should be strongly pushed out. And that's not even getting into the idea that a corporate blog should stray away from overtly-political posts.