4 ms·

I did not make any comment about the GP’s post in particular. I made a comment about a funny phenomenon of posting on HN in general. I specifically brought up p

I did not make any comment about the GP’s post in particular. I made a comment about a funny phenomenon of posting on HN in general. I specifically brought up posters using highfalutin’ fancy speech to cover an ardent pro-cop bias. There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic in order to eventually land at “the police are the arbiters of truth” or something similar. The primary tactic is to use high school debate club language to put words in other people’s mouths in an attempt to discredit any view that doesn’t align with their premise of “the police are arbiters of truth.” Do you think that that phenomenon does not exist?

rendall 4y ago
> There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic... I can agree that some people try to reason using language skills rather than reasoning from first principles
- braingenious 4y ago
  I’m glad that we agree about the phenomenon I’ve described. Happy to clear that up! It is indeed weird how people use that trick to attempt to stamp out any detractors to the idea that the police are perfect stewards of truth.
  - rendall 4y ago
    I don't see that phenomena about cop boot-lickers on HN in particular more than anywhere else, but I'm sure it happens here sometimes too. I also didn't think it was a well-written article, though. The fellow's injuries do not seem accidental if the article reported them accurately, but the connection to the rape case was pretty tenuous. It could be that, or something else that got him killed, or the article just got some facts wrong. The article didn't really give me confidence.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      The “bootlicking” isn’t more prominent here than say, Twitter or Facebook, that’s for sure. It’s the manner of it that I think is amusingly distinct for this site. On other platforms people will outright say “I back our boys in blue! I have a Punisher themed gun tattooed on my pubic mound!” On HN, instead of directly supporting the police and their narratives, there are posters that will pop up with no opinion other than “You are wrong” about anything that’s counter to police narratives. Instead of arguing for a narrative, they argue against any contrary narratives, usually on silly parliamentary grounds. This way they can support the police without appearing to support the police. It’s a fun little parlor trick!

rendall 4y ago

> There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic... I can agree that some people try to reason using language skills rather than reasoning from first principles

braingenious 4y ago
I’m glad that we agree about the phenomenon I’ve described. Happy to clear that up! It is indeed weird how people use that trick to attempt to stamp out any detractors to the idea that the police are perfect stewards of truth.
- rendall 4y ago
  I don't see that phenomena about cop boot-lickers on HN in particular more than anywhere else, but I'm sure it happens here sometimes too. I also didn't think it was a well-written article, though. The fellow's injuries do not seem accidental if the article reported them accurately, but the connection to the rape case was pretty tenuous. It could be that, or something else that got him killed, or the article just got some facts wrong. The article didn't really give me confidence.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    The “bootlicking” isn’t more prominent here than say, Twitter or Facebook, that’s for sure. It’s the manner of it that I think is amusingly distinct for this site. On other platforms people will outright say “I back our boys in blue! I have a Punisher themed gun tattooed on my pubic mound!” On HN, instead of directly supporting the police and their narratives, there are posters that will pop up with no opinion other than “You are wrong” about anything that’s counter to police narratives. Instead of arguing for a narrative, they argue against any contrary narratives, usually on silly parliamentary grounds. This way they can support the police without appearing to support the police. It’s a fun little parlor trick!