3 ms·

>> Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven > It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up.

>> Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven > It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. I can't ignore the irony here that you complain about straw-manning of the OP by cherry-picking the only negative comment in spite of the 99% of commentary in favor. Edit: I also can't ignore that the plaint of pervasive "echo chamber hyperbole" is juxtaposed with statements like these: > This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. > This is literacy 101. > 99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper.

h0l0cube 6y ago
Getting downvotes for this, not because there's any solid argument against what I'm saying, but because people are upset. The reason why I had to say something is because the GPs comment highlights much of what is wrong with online discourse. That 'The New York Post has more merit than people afford it' might be worthy claim, but making a bunch of loud baseless claims isn't the way to convince people of it.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  It's not people being upset, it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful. Making a simple case is a lot more effective than vague comments on other people's cases.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > It's not people being upset If it wasn't they would have critiqued my comment as you have. But instead it was a string of drive-by down-votes. > it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful I think it is important to point out bad faith dialogue wherever it is seen. And that's what I did, by pointing out the contradictions in the moral stance made, and then the poster completely disregarding them in the same breath. > vague comments on other people's cases. They weren't vague at all, they were very specific. The poster was making a rhetorical play rather than furthering the discussion, and I pointed it out with direct quotes.

h0l0cube 6y ago

Getting downvotes for this, not because there's any solid argument against what I'm saying, but because people are upset. The reason why I had to say something is because the GPs comment highlights much of what is wrong with online discourse. That 'The New York Post has more merit than people afford it' might be worthy claim, but making a bunch of loud baseless claims isn't the way to convince people of it.

robertlagrant 6y ago
It's not people being upset, it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful. Making a simple case is a lot more effective than vague comments on other people's cases.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > It's not people being upset If it wasn't they would have critiqued my comment as you have. But instead it was a string of drive-by down-votes. > it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful I think it is important to point out bad faith dialogue wherever it is seen. And that's what I did, by pointing out the contradictions in the moral stance made, and then the poster completely disregarding them in the same breath. > vague comments on other people's cases. They weren't vague at all, they were very specific. The poster was making a rhetorical play rather than furthering the discussion, and I pointed it out with direct quotes.