4 ms·

A. you sure did B. Can you stay on topic please? That is the second topic you bring up without anyone asking. Funny enough, you downplayed climate change agai

A. you sure did B. Can you stay on topic please? That is the second topic you bring up without anyone asking. Funny enough, you downplayed climate change again.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Nope. What's extremely "funny" in some sense of that word is that elsewhere on HN I am discussing climate change and environmental issues in earnest and it hasn't gotten one tenth the attention this has gotten, which is proof positive of my point: people have big feels about the topic and vent a lot about it but don't want to really engage constructively with it anywhere near as much. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443229
jskrablin 3y ago
I'd say that the Cold War had a far bigger potential to end the humanity than climate change currently has. It's a well known fact that we were on a brink of nuclear confrontation more than once during that period.
darkerside 3y ago
Buddy, you are upset that poster isn't engaging with you on climate change in a thread about a comet. What gives you the right to dictate the narrative? How about you both talk about what you want to talk about?
- razemio 3y ago
  "Dude", whataboutism is a thing and to my opinion it is extremely annoying. You do not need to agree with me, but I will certainly point it out to someone constantly doing it. If you notice, I haven't till he did a second time in a matter of minutes.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I haven't till he did a second time in a matter of minutes. FYI, I'm a woman. It's my policy to generally not correct people who misgender me on HN, but in this case I will note it and suggest that perhaps your powers of observation aren't the best. Someone mentioned existential dread, which also really has nothing to do with anything "on topic." I commented on that about finding it sort of funny. Lots of people felt some need to reply to my comment when most of my comments get very little engagement. I wish my more serious comments got more meaty engagement. This whole thing strikes me as a ridiculous overeaction.
    - razemio 3y ago
      I am sorry for not using the correct gender, which is obviously an error on my part. It is not correct to asume anything and it seriously hurts the conversation. Sometimes I whish we had a gender neutral language. It would make things fair. You initial comment wasn't serious? You are somewhat confusing to talk to. Let's end this and agree to disagree.
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        No, it's completely serious. I seriously find it amusing. It's just not anything that merits some giant pile-on of pushback from HN that makes it sound like I'm some extremely famous and influential environmental activist who just pulled a William Shatner and laughed in the face of my core audience on SNL and told them to "get lives" and "worry about something more important." To me, this is like "Woah, dude. HN is histrionic here. Wow."
  - darkerside 3y ago
    If you don't like a tangent, you don't have to engage with it. It's not whataboutism, it's observation of direct hypocrisy. You should reexamine your usage and understanding of the term, because it doesn't make any sense in this context.
    - razemio 3y ago
      Maybe I haven't understood the whataboutism definition. I just checked again (EN Wikipedia). To quote, “Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy...”. For me, anything that goes like “but XYZ was/is worse” is whataboutism. Whataboutism can still be valid but in this case, the examples given were highly unlikely or in the past. Even if valid, why do people feel the need to derail a topic? Can't you care about climate change and a comet hitting the Earth? > If you don't like a tangent, you don't have to engage with it. I will engage with anybody trying to downplay climate change. Thanks. The Whataboutism part wasn't part of the discussion until the second topic was brought up.

A. you sure did B. Can you stay on topic please? That is the second topic you bring up without anyone asking. Funny enough, you downplayed climate change again.

DoreenMichele 3y ago

Nope. What's extremely "funny" in some sense of that word is that elsewhere on HN I am discussing climate change and environmental issues in earnest and it hasn't gotten one tenth the attention this has gotten, which is proof positive of my point: people have big feels about the topic and vent a lot about it but don't want to really engage constructively with it anywhere near as much. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443229

jskrablin 3y ago

I'd say that the Cold War had a far bigger potential to end the humanity than climate change currently has. It's a well known fact that we were on a brink of nuclear confrontation more than once during that period.

darkerside 3y ago

Buddy, you are upset that poster isn't engaging with you on climate change in a thread about a comet. What gives you the right to dictate the narrative? How about you both talk about what you want to talk about?

razemio 3y ago
"Dude", whataboutism is a thing and to my opinion it is extremely annoying. You do not need to agree with me, but I will certainly point it out to someone constantly doing it. If you notice, I haven't till he did a second time in a matter of minutes.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  I haven't till he did a second time in a matter of minutes. FYI, I'm a woman. It's my policy to generally not correct people who misgender me on HN, but in this case I will note it and suggest that perhaps your powers of observation aren't the best. Someone mentioned existential dread, which also really has nothing to do with anything "on topic." I commented on that about finding it sort of funny. Lots of people felt some need to reply to my comment when most of my comments get very little engagement. I wish my more serious comments got more meaty engagement. This whole thing strikes me as a ridiculous overeaction.
  - razemio 3y ago
    I am sorry for not using the correct gender, which is obviously an error on my part. It is not correct to asume anything and it seriously hurts the conversation. Sometimes I whish we had a gender neutral language. It would make things fair. You initial comment wasn't serious? You are somewhat confusing to talk to. Let's end this and agree to disagree.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      No, it's completely serious. I seriously find it amusing. It's just not anything that merits some giant pile-on of pushback from HN that makes it sound like I'm some extremely famous and influential environmental activist who just pulled a William Shatner and laughed in the face of my core audience on SNL and told them to "get lives" and "worry about something more important." To me, this is like "Woah, dude. HN is histrionic here. Wow."
- darkerside 3y ago
  If you don't like a tangent, you don't have to engage with it. It's not whataboutism, it's observation of direct hypocrisy. You should reexamine your usage and understanding of the term, because it doesn't make any sense in this context.
  - razemio 3y ago
    Maybe I haven't understood the whataboutism definition. I just checked again (EN Wikipedia). To quote, “Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy...”. For me, anything that goes like “but XYZ was/is worse” is whataboutism. Whataboutism can still be valid but in this case, the examples given were highly unlikely or in the past. Even if valid, why do people feel the need to derail a topic? Can't you care about climate change and a comet hitting the Earth? > If you don't like a tangent, you don't have to engage with it. I will engage with anybody trying to downplay climate change. Thanks. The Whataboutism part wasn't part of the discussion until the second topic was brought up.