3 ms·

> You're so intent on being offended by imagined offence taken by someone else that you're ignoring them telling you first hand that you've misunderstood them.

> You're so intent on being offended by imagined offence taken by someone else that you're ignoring them telling you first hand that you've misunderstood them. The irony is astounding... Oh jesus, the classic "no you're offended" weak defence. I am in a round-about-way pointing out how historically illiterate (younger) people are these days. Especially when, particularly on HN, free software, free speech etc is the de rigueur cause, yet somehow they don't even know the major recent Supreme Court cases that enforce and uphold the right to such things as satire. Hustler was a major case up there with Roe vs Wade. Now if I'm slightly annoyed by that, then so be it.

soheil 6y ago
You're preaching to the choir, I'm all for free speech, fighting hard battles, etc. but why are you lashing out on me for a simple grammatical issue I took with the title of this post? If you believe the avg HN user should know more about "major recent SC cases" rather than startup founders and them being "hustlers", I think you may be hanging around the wrong community.
- Person5478 6y ago
  Because it's both unnecessary and distracting. When I misunderstand titles and then realize my mistake I don't start complaining about it. Can it be read either way? Yes. Does it really matter? No. Language is often ambiguous without context. But even with that, it really isn't confusing. The ones who don't know who Larry Flint are may choose not to click on it whether they take the word Hustler as a verb or a noun. And the ones who do click will be disabused of their potential confusion almost immediately. IOW, it's a huge nothingburger.