5 ms·

I think you've let your brand loyalty blind you from a lot of the damage that brand has objectively caused.

by tomlin 4y ago

pigtailgirl 4y ago
looking at your history of comments- you might consider acquainting yourself with the guidelines - otherwise i'd suggest HN maybe isn't the right community for you - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tomlin 4y ago
  I think that you're digging into my history is telling about how triggered you are about me having an opinion on a brand that puts very basic design on top of overpriced clothing that they don't actually make themselves. Nothing in these guidelines refrains opinions. Telling me my comment is lazy, however, does. Speaking of lazy, here's where Supreme stole their identity and style from: https://www.complex.com/style/2013/05/barbara-kruger-responds-to-supremes-lawsuit-a-ridiculous-clusterfk-of-totally-uncool-jokers https://www.complex.com/style/2013/05/barbara-kruger-respond... Also, my account isn't 34 days old, so I can't feign moral superiority over anyone. I just have this one account.
  - pigtailgirl 4y ago
    lived across the st from the Supreme store on Lafayette for years - we started digitalocean in the same building as their store - know the supreme founders well - and the "origin story" - good guys - only thing I garnered from looking at your comment history is that you don't understand what the word "objectively" means yet use it ad nauseam - and - you're unfamiliar with the site guidelines - i'm new here so maybe I read them more recently than you? good thing I was here to remind you before you get in trouble for intellectual dishonestly - don't worry - everyone makes mistakes friend! :=)
    - tomlin 4y ago
      Cool story. I lived in neighbourhoods where teens have been stabbed trying to get Supreme clothing. So you’ll have to excuse me while I disregard the coolness of living across the street from them. That anecdotal tale isn't the point, and shouldn't even matter. Nor does my use of the word “objective.” It actually has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The term “personality cult” comes to mind, though. There is no intellectual dishonesty here (I literally linked an article, so not sure how you landed on that) and I am pretty familiar with the guidelines. Calling a comment lazy is an example of someone who hasn’t really read the guidelines in a way that applies to themselves. You just don’t want to hear other’s opinions. Pretty simple line to follow. You’d think someone who has read the guidelines so well would know that you’re not actually supposed to be making accusatory remarks to other members, no matter how angry you get about them not liking your clothing brand. Possibly the weirdest hill to die on, given the state of the world. I've been in this community for a number of years. Can't say I've ever felt the need to stalk someone's history, and this is the first I've experienced it directed towards me, after thousands of interactions in this community. That's 12 years of interactions. Very strange behaviour indeed.
      - pigtailgirl 4y ago
        "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Otherwise it's- imo- objectively - lazy -
        tomlin 4y ago
        The fact that someone could have a conversation publicly available, and reference the guidelines they are applying in partisan is baffling. I almost suspect satire. I would give yourself a second of self-reflection. You are the first and only violator of the guidelines: You: “this is a lazy comment - I believe it was in conjunction with another new york artist who's studio is in the same building - Tom Sachs - he's an installation artist - and the brick was $30 - not accounting for taste huh- never the less - your point is extremely poorly made -“ The guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community You: "looking at your history of comments- you might consider acquainting yourself with the guidelines” The guidelines: Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. You: “good thing I was here to remind you before you get in trouble for intellectual dishonestly” The guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I think you've let your brand loyalty blind you from a lot of the damage that brand has objectively caused.

by tomlin 4y ago

I think you've let your brand loyalty blind you from a lot of the damage that brand has objectively caused.

looking at your history of comments- you might consider acquainting yourself with the guidelines - otherwise i'd suggest HN maybe isn't the right community for you - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomlin 4y ago
I think that you're digging into my history is telling about how triggered you are about me having an opinion on a brand that puts very basic design on top of overpriced clothing that they don't actually make themselves. Nothing in these guidelines refrains opinions. Telling me my comment is lazy, however, does. Speaking of lazy, here's where Supreme stole their identity and style from: https://www.complex.com/style/2013/05/barbara-kruger-responds-to-supremes-lawsuit-a-ridiculous-clusterfk-of-totally-uncool-jokers https://www.complex.com/style/2013/05/barbara-kruger-respond... Also, my account isn't 34 days old, so I can't feign moral superiority over anyone. I just have this one account.
- pigtailgirl 4y ago
  lived across the st from the Supreme store on Lafayette for years - we started digitalocean in the same building as their store - know the supreme founders well - and the "origin story" - good guys - only thing I garnered from looking at your comment history is that you don't understand what the word "objectively" means yet use it ad nauseam - and - you're unfamiliar with the site guidelines - i'm new here so maybe I read them more recently than you? good thing I was here to remind you before you get in trouble for intellectual dishonestly - don't worry - everyone makes mistakes friend! :=)
  - tomlin 4y ago
    Cool story. I lived in neighbourhoods where teens have been stabbed trying to get Supreme clothing. So you’ll have to excuse me while I disregard the coolness of living across the street from them. That anecdotal tale isn't the point, and shouldn't even matter. Nor does my use of the word “objective.” It actually has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The term “personality cult” comes to mind, though. There is no intellectual dishonesty here (I literally linked an article, so not sure how you landed on that) and I am pretty familiar with the guidelines. Calling a comment lazy is an example of someone who hasn’t really read the guidelines in a way that applies to themselves. You just don’t want to hear other’s opinions. Pretty simple line to follow. You’d think someone who has read the guidelines so well would know that you’re not actually supposed to be making accusatory remarks to other members, no matter how angry you get about them not liking your clothing brand. Possibly the weirdest hill to die on, given the state of the world. I've been in this community for a number of years. Can't say I've ever felt the need to stalk someone's history, and this is the first I've experienced it directed towards me, after thousands of interactions in this community. That's 12 years of interactions. Very strange behaviour indeed.
    - pigtailgirl 4y ago
      "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Otherwise it's- imo- objectively - lazy -
      - tomlin 4y ago
        The fact that someone could have a conversation publicly available, and reference the guidelines they are applying in partisan is baffling. I almost suspect satire. I would give yourself a second of self-reflection. You are the first and only violator of the guidelines: You: “this is a lazy comment - I believe it was in conjunction with another new york artist who's studio is in the same building - Tom Sachs - he's an installation artist - and the brick was $30 - not accounting for taste huh- never the less - your point is extremely poorly made -“ The guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community You: "looking at your history of comments- you might consider acquainting yourself with the guidelines” The guidelines: Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. You: “good thing I was here to remind you before you get in trouble for intellectual dishonestly” The guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.