3 ms·
> I'm not "Trying to construct threads in bad faith" or "bikeshedding" or whatever else. It isn't a violation of the site guidelines to disagree with you. This
by rewmie 3y ago
> I'm not "Trying to construct threads in bad faith" or "bikeshedding" or whatever else. It isn't a violation of the site guidelines to disagree with you.
This comment is yet another example of how you are not arguing in good faith.
You're somehow trying to misrepresent the problem of your insistence in downplaying and even denying evidence of Wagner's neonazi and white supremacists ties as just people disagreeing, and then passing yourself as a victim for being attacked for not agreeing with something. This is a gross misrepresentation of the whole discussion.
You're referring to a guy covered in Nazi tattoos who created an organization reflecting Nazi ideology and with known tie with white supremacists and neonazi ideologies as having no objective ties to Nazi ideologies. While you deny that, you're desperately trying to pass off any remark refuting your baseless claim as being attacks o difference of opinions, when actually you're irrationally denying evidence and insisting on pushing a blatantly false idea.
You don't seem to be arguing in good faith, and it looks you're trying to manipulate and distort things to whitewash neonazi organizations under the excuse of relativizing evidence, shift burdens of proof, and manipulating objectivisim bars to still claim a fact is not verified in spite of all the evidence and thus it should be treated as false. This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
- skissane 3y ago> as having no objective ties to Nazi ideologies. While you deny that If you go back and read what I said, I said: > what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"? That's not denying anything. That's simply asking what the evidence is. When asking what the evidence for an assertion is gets the response: > This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism. I don't think we are engaging in rational discussion any more. Continued engagement is pointless.
- rewmie 3y ago[flagged]
- skissane 3y ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoPlease don't perpetuate flamewars. This is also in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- skissane 3y agoSorry, you are right I should have stopped responding to them. It is hard to resist the urge, but I should have.
- dang 3y agoYou've broken HN's rules badly in this argument, and you've done it repeatedly elsewhere. We end up having to ban accounts that do this, so please stick to the rules from now on. If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, the good options include (1) post correct information substantively, so the rest of us can learn (this is very different from calling names and attacking personally, as you and others did in this thread); (2) downvote and/or (if the comment breaks the site guidelines) flag the post; (3) chalk it up to the internet being wrong and simply move on.