2 ms·
Sure, the people are on Wikipedia, but the account of their controversy was not. Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppres
by SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
Sure, the people are on Wikipedia, but the account of their controversy was not.
Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppressed?
- throwaway894345 4y agoThey are both on wikipedia; I read them yesterday. On mobile now, but you can google them easily. They don’t have anything to do with conservatives views being suppressed because we weren’t talking about that. The original claim was that people who get “called out” have reprehensible views—I gave examples of people who were fired or harassed or etc for completely innocuous speech.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago…what do you think the title of this submission is?
- throwaway894345 4y agoOh dear, you think every comment on HN is a direct reply to the title? No, comments are arranged in a tree structure. For example, the comment you're reading right now is a reply to your previous comment, not to the title. It's not just HN that structures its comments this way--it's a very popular schema, so this bit of knowledge should be really helpful for you on your Internet adventures. Godspeed!
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoHm, so you don’t think comments should be related to one another?
- throwaway894345 4y agoThe comments were related to each other, and indirectly to the title. This discussion has descended into obtuseness, and I find obtuseness to be boring, so I’ll dip out.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoThe comments were not related, if you were no longer discussing conservatives being banned from platforms. Sorry you feel the need to name-call here, but hope you have a better time elsewhere.
- throwaway894345 4y agoI didn’t name call. You seem to be pathologically misreading my comments and others. Good bye now.