3 ms·

> But reading to find how you might dismiss it is different from reading it critically. How so? You're free to believe whatever you wish about me, only the ac

> But reading to find how you might dismiss it is different from reading it critically. How so? You're free to believe whatever you wish about me, only the actual issues raised are what matters, not the person raising them. > It's not about the trucker convoy, no. This is far more important than whether or not I personally rub you the wrong way. It means the paper is not legitimate. > when it's simple to find the definition just by searching I didn't just search, I actually read it. Stare at the paragraph again: > Figure 2: Overall hate speech on Twitter increased after Elon Musk bought the platform. Number of hateful tweets sam- pled during each week in 2022, compared to a baseline of tweets collected during the same time period. The spike in March, 2022 coincides with the Canada convoy protests. Look at the chart and this description and tell me you don't understand the problem here.

maxbond 3y ago
The difference is that if you make up your mind about the paper before you've even read it, a.) You've written a self fulfilling prophecy, b.) Your criticism will be shallow, and c.) You're not going to understand the paper. The problem isn't that I have any animus towards you (which I don't). Frankly the problem is that you're misrepresenting what's in the paper. If you say you've read it, you shouldn't be saying it's misleading and justifying that by things that are trivially checked by searching. I'm doing my best to presume good faith and to presume that you weren't doing this intentionally. But you're not really giving me a lot to work with in that regard.
- HopenHeyHi 3y ago
  I've explained quite clearly why I think it is misleading without misrepresenting anything. Some of my points you've conceded others you've decided to ignore and make it about me. If you read it as well and deem this paper of good quality I suppose we can just agree to disagree and move on what can I say. I believe in following the truth wherever it may lead not fitting data to politically motivated conclusions which this work is very clearly doing, sad state of affairs.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I share this value of pursuing the truth without favor or prejudice; I think you should consider whether that was really what you went about doing. When I read your responses here, I honestly do get the impression you read this document with an agenda. When I pushed back on that, it didn't really seem like you denied it as much as justified it. That's not a problem for me, I do my best not to be invested in the opinions of others, but from what you're saying, maybe it should be a problem for you. Best of luck, stranger. See you around.
    - HopenHeyHi 3y ago
      Sorry you got that impression, that is between you and yourself as it were. I don't have anything to justify, as once again, my one and only agenda is as you say pursuing the truth without favor or prejudice. It does not matter to me in which direction the paper is politically slanted one iota, or what conclusions it so desperately seeks. The ends don't justify the means, sorry. It matters very much to me that it isn't anything like science, and worse, that it masquerades. You can dance around this all you want.
      - dang 3y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        HopenHeyHi 3y ago
        I am familiar with the guidelines and the intended spirit of the site and am totally on board. Are you referring to something I posted in this thread as unsubstantive and flamebaity? To be clear, nothing I wrote here was written intended as such. Edit (since I can't reply): You've met me at a very strange time in my life, what can I say, I'll keep those notes in mind. To be clear, nothing from this particular thread?

maxbond 3y ago

The difference is that if you make up your mind about the paper before you've even read it, a.) You've written a self fulfilling prophecy, b.) Your criticism will be shallow, and c.) You're not going to understand the paper. The problem isn't that I have any animus towards you (which I don't). Frankly the problem is that you're misrepresenting what's in the paper. If you say you've read it, you shouldn't be saying it's misleading and justifying that by things that are trivially checked by searching. I'm doing my best to presume good faith and to presume that you weren't doing this intentionally. But you're not really giving me a lot to work with in that regard.

HopenHeyHi 3y ago
I've explained quite clearly why I think it is misleading without misrepresenting anything. Some of my points you've conceded others you've decided to ignore and make it about me. If you read it as well and deem this paper of good quality I suppose we can just agree to disagree and move on what can I say. I believe in following the truth wherever it may lead not fitting data to politically motivated conclusions which this work is very clearly doing, sad state of affairs.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I share this value of pursuing the truth without favor or prejudice; I think you should consider whether that was really what you went about doing. When I read your responses here, I honestly do get the impression you read this document with an agenda. When I pushed back on that, it didn't really seem like you denied it as much as justified it. That's not a problem for me, I do my best not to be invested in the opinions of others, but from what you're saying, maybe it should be a problem for you. Best of luck, stranger. See you around.
  - HopenHeyHi 3y ago
    Sorry you got that impression, that is between you and yourself as it were. I don't have anything to justify, as once again, my one and only agenda is as you say pursuing the truth without favor or prejudice. It does not matter to me in which direction the paper is politically slanted one iota, or what conclusions it so desperately seeks. The ends don't justify the means, sorry. It matters very much to me that it isn't anything like science, and worse, that it masquerades. You can dance around this all you want.
    - dang 3y ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - HopenHeyHi 3y ago
        I am familiar with the guidelines and the intended spirit of the site and am totally on board. Are you referring to something I posted in this thread as unsubstantive and flamebaity? To be clear, nothing I wrote here was written intended as such. Edit (since I can't reply): You've met me at a very strange time in my life, what can I say, I'll keep those notes in mind. To be clear, nothing from this particular thread?