4 ms·
> Deciding what constitutes incorrect or disputed information in a political climate absolutely does. Absolutely not. Absolute means something and you're being
by Supermancho 6y ago
> Deciding what constitutes incorrect or disputed information in a political climate absolutely does.
Absolutely not. Absolute means something and you're being hyperbolic, at best. It's the human condition to make selective decisions, including meta-decisions. It does not make you or I an arbiter of truth because we do it, nor does it make Twitter or youtube arbiters of truth. This is "equality of outcome", territory which is nonsense.
- dang 6y ago> you're being obtuse No name-calling on HN, please. It's specifically against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The more polarized things become, the more all of us here need to breathe and treat each other well.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- happytoexplain 6y agoThis is an interesting example - I'm guessing the poster said "obtuse" where he now says "hyperbolic". While "obtuse" is definitely just an insult, literally, my experience is that it's used colloquially with an implied "deliberately" prefix to mean not "deliberately stupid/slow" but rather "deliberately avoiding some truth as a rhetorical defense". Of course, better safe than sorry.
- dang 6y agoRight, it was edited that way. Commenters shouldn't edit things in ways that undermine existing replies—that's discourteous and can even be passive-aggressive. Words that imply 'deliberately' are probably best avoided in HN discussion because they're mostly a way of attacking the other person. Another common one is 'disingenuous'.
- atomi 6y agoTo be fair the original comment (which is top comment at the time of this writing) is not making a good faith argument.
- dang 6y agoCommenters here need to follow the rules regardless of what someone else did. Otherwise we just end in a downward spiral, because it always feels like the other person started it. If by the original comment you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929, I don't see any indicator of bad faith there. Maybe it's wrong or even very wrong but that's not the same as bad faith.
- atomi 6y agoFor posterity, the bad-faith in the original comment is based on the fact that the poster states that tagging something as disputed is itself arbitration. But the act of tagging a tweet as "disputed" is a purposeful deference of arbitration to 3rd parties. In other words, the action is the opposite of what he/she is saying and the poster is either self-deceived or wantonly obfuscating truth and deceiving others - very bad-faith.
- dang 6y agoI think you're reading that comment overly literally. But even if you're right, the psychological state you're deriving from it does not necessarily follow. You're the one filling in that step, and then using it to attack someone else ("bad faith"). That's the part we ask people not to do here, for what should be obvious reasons. Before you get to "the poster is either self-deceived", your post here is a fine critical comment and could easily just stop there.
- neonate 6y agoYou're reacting to just the word "absolute" and misinterpreting what he meant. In that sentence it just means "very much". You could delete it without changing the argument.
- Supermancho 6y agoNor does removing my initial objection change the response.