4 ms·

What can I say. It's your site, your rules. But I disagree strongly with your "way over the top" Daniel – that's just rude. Mine was an on-topic factual respo

by Radim 5y ago

What can I say. It's your site, your rules. But I disagree strongly with your "way over the top" Daniel – that's just rude. Mine was an on-topic factual response, substantiated with relevant links, articulated in a perfectly civil manner. Along with my sibling responses. I bet you many people were not aware of these facts, or the broader historical context. All perfectly appropriate given the thread topic. I'm kinda sad this information (it really took effort to compile) is now invisible :(

dang 5y ago
By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. This should not be hard to understand. As everyone knows, there's a vast history of people arguing ad Hitlerum in internet flamewars. It was already a cliché decades ago—in fact it is the most notorious internet cliché of all time. When invoked in the context of contemporary political debates, it's pure flamebait. That's against the site guidelines because it leads to flamewars, which we don't want here. Not only that but your comment contained other flamebait besides the Holocaust invocation. "Don't worry, there's plenty of time yet" and "So excuse me for not being impressed by your" were obvious provocations. That's not "a perfectly civil manner". "Factual" is a red herring - there are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves; humans do that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- Radim 5y ago
  > By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. Nope, it wasn't. See my sibling response to random314. Just because others cried wolf before, doesn't mean you shouldn't cry wolf when you see one. Indeed you must, given the parent post (detached now, context lost). I didn't draw that analogy out of nowhere – it's apt, and driven by both hard data and curiosity. Choosing to ignore your "this should not be hard to understand" and "everyone knows" snarks.
  - random314 5y ago
    - Radim 5y ago
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't start this distasteful, absurd flamewar up again.
      - random314 5y ago
        Part of why this is personal to me, is that I am immunocompromised and vaccines don't work for me. I got the shots but efficacy numbers for people like me are very poor. I haven't stepped out in 2 years because of antivaxxers. Now they are pretending to be holocaust victims, because employers are now prioritizing employee safety. I am compelled to overturn this narrative wherever I find it.
        dang 5y ago
        I hear you and I'm sorry that things have been so difficult. Nonetheless, please don't do that here—it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

by Radim 5y ago

dang 5y ago

By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. This should not be hard to understand. As everyone knows, there's a vast history of people arguing ad Hitlerum in internet flamewars. It was already a cliché decades ago—in fact it is the most notorious internet cliché of all time. When invoked in the context of contemporary political debates, it's pure flamebait. That's against the site guidelines because it leads to flamewars, which we don't want here. Not only that but your comment contained other flamebait besides the Holocaust invocation. "Don't worry, there's plenty of time yet" and "So excuse me for not being impressed by your" were obvious provocations. That's not "a perfectly civil manner". "Factual" is a red herring - there are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves; humans do that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Radim 5y ago
> By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. Nope, it wasn't. See my sibling response to random314. Just because others cried wolf before, doesn't mean you shouldn't cry wolf when you see one. Indeed you must, given the parent post (detached now, context lost). I didn't draw that analogy out of nowhere – it's apt, and driven by both hard data and curiosity. Choosing to ignore your "this should not be hard to understand" and "everyone knows" snarks.
- random314 5y ago
  - Radim 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't start this distasteful, absurd flamewar up again.
    - random314 5y ago
      Part of why this is personal to me, is that I am immunocompromised and vaccines don't work for me. I got the shots but efficacy numbers for people like me are very poor. I haven't stepped out in 2 years because of antivaxxers. Now they are pretending to be holocaust victims, because employers are now prioritizing employee safety. I am compelled to overturn this narrative wherever I find it.
      - dang 5y ago
        I hear you and I'm sorry that things have been so difficult. Nonetheless, please don't do that here—it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.