3 ms·
The only way what I said is indicative of a "cheap, ideological flamewar" is if what I said wasn't true. And the person who "disagreed" with me wound up saying
by bena 5y ago
The only way what I said is indicative of a "cheap, ideological flamewar" is if what I said wasn't true.
And the person who "disagreed" with me wound up saying he did agree with me. That the police do not want to lose budget. But they do want to do less. He essentially opposed that I used the pronoun "they" to refer to "the police".
- dang 5y agoThis argument is like sending a letter bomb in the mail (not that anyone does that anymore) and then protesting that what you wrote in your letter was true. Obviously one can take a true statement (I'm not saying yours were true or not true, just speaking hypothetically) and wrap it up in a damaging flamewar package. Not only that, but if your claims are true, then you discredit not only yourself and your views by posting this way, but also the truth itself, which actually does harm. One who knows truths that others aren't aware of is under a higher responsibility than that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... But whether you care about that or not, please follow HN's rules if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bena 5y agoBut I disagree with your analogy about the letter bomb. Even the guy I was talking with said he enjoyed the discussion. I'm just not getting it here. Obviously. We had an exchange, we came to an understanding of sorts. No feelings were injured (that I can tell).
- dang 5y agoYes I hear you - the difference is that we have to moderate for the general case. It's a bit like poker. You can win with an inside straight, but not in the long run.