4 ms·
You are replying to inflammatory twitter bait in a reply to not-the-tweeter on hacker news. Seriously, also @orf, why take this here? Clearly the impulse to re
by bondarchuk 6y ago
You are replying to inflammatory twitter bait in a reply to not-the-tweeter on hacker news.
Seriously, also @orf, why take this here? Clearly the impulse to reflexively argue about this is too big to handle for some. Go do this on twitter where you copied it from.
- orf 6y agoDescribing the personal pilosophy of an author of a philosophy book is clearly relevant. It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact: "The author of this book holds these views". Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. If you find it uncomfortable to see those views discussed then I would humbly suggest that it may be your problem to deal with and not mine.
- prvc 6y ago>Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. Those feelings are pretty obvious. I say, the new "Never trust anyone over 30" is "Never listen to takes from someone who hasn't been cancelled".
- nyolfen 6y agothe author plays a game on twitter that many people do, which is ‘find an apparent contradiction in the prevailing morality and make a reprehensible/funny argument with it’; robin hanson for example is the master of this game. this may not be obvious without context but it is literally just negative attention bait to gain an audience
- cambalache 6y agoYes more censorship is what we need.
- hopfscotch2 6y agoIf it was only to shut up people like you, it would be enough.
- wwright 6y agoI think that it’s worthwhile to note that the author of the linked article has equated a child protesting climate change with systematic child rape. That’s very helpful context for reading his other work.