5 ms·

Follow your own rules when it comes to subjects that trigger you and all will be well. If it is not clear, I find the histrionics a form of performative trolli

Follow your own rules when it comes to subjects that trigger you and all will be well. If it is not clear, I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling.

seadan83 2y ago
It's not about me here. You violated several of those discussion guidelines. Do better.
- verticalscaler 2y ago
  You do better.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    The old: "I know you are, but what am I." - well done. If you can point out where I am cherry-picking data, please do so. If you would point out exactly how I have violated the HN discussion guidelines, please do so (arguably this is turning into a flame-war, mea culpa again for entertaining a bad faith argument for too long) Otherwise, at this juncture your claim, "at least one pearl clutching internet commentator turned out to be wrong" is not super interesting and your incorrectly extrapolated opinion that "all of them who said X were wrong" is unsupported, debunked by previously cited data, and is a good example of cherry-picking data. You were asked to provide citations and/or backing data for your opinions, and it seems the best you have mustered is: "I'm rubber and you're glue"
    - verticalscaler 2y ago
      Just do better.
seadan83 2y ago
Not triggered, just pointing out anecdata. Your previous statements were unsupported. The reference I cited gave some examples of how those statements were inaccurate.
seadan83 2y ago
Last thought, when others disagree with me - I do spend a bit more time on the subject to double check my thinking and to assess their opinion in greater detail. Finding places where oneself was incorrect is a good way to grow. Unfortunately, chat communities on the modern internet are more about performative trolling (as you would put it), rather than ever admitting mistake or being wrong. It's about noise generation and not much more. With luck, hacker news can be a last bastion where the noise is unwelcome, whereas facts, data and analsyis are welcome. That is a difference between reddit or Twitter & here.
seadan83 2y ago
The point in contention "I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling." - others have pointed out that the histrionics is your perspective. You noted statements like "the site will be down all the time", others have corrected that they have seen statements like "greater downtime" - and the data does back that up. - therefore, what are you talking about exactly? This is why I'm saying you have the burden of proof to show exactly what you are talking about, with quotes, links, citations, data. Otherwise it seems that you're making a mountain of a mole-hill from cherry-picked data that likely fit your own confirmation bias. Which is not really a useful insight when someone is just saying: "see, gee, that one person over there - they exaggerated!" Is it really a large number of people that were making incorrect statements, enough that you're not just cherry-picking data? Hopefully you got the point, that nobody's word is really just taken at face value here, and those that are - are opinions and are not worth much (which goes for my opinions too, and anyone else's here.)

Follow your own rules when it comes to subjects that trigger you and all will be well. If it is not clear, I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling.

seadan83 2y ago

It's not about me here. You violated several of those discussion guidelines. Do better.

verticalscaler 2y ago
You do better.
- seadan83 2y ago
  The old: "I know you are, but what am I." - well done. If you can point out where I am cherry-picking data, please do so. If you would point out exactly how I have violated the HN discussion guidelines, please do so (arguably this is turning into a flame-war, mea culpa again for entertaining a bad faith argument for too long) Otherwise, at this juncture your claim, "at least one pearl clutching internet commentator turned out to be wrong" is not super interesting and your incorrectly extrapolated opinion that "all of them who said X were wrong" is unsupported, debunked by previously cited data, and is a good example of cherry-picking data. You were asked to provide citations and/or backing data for your opinions, and it seems the best you have mustered is: "I'm rubber and you're glue"
  - verticalscaler 2y ago
    Just do better.

seadan83 2y ago

Not triggered, just pointing out anecdata. Your previous statements were unsupported. The reference I cited gave some examples of how those statements were inaccurate.

seadan83 2y ago

Last thought, when others disagree with me - I do spend a bit more time on the subject to double check my thinking and to assess their opinion in greater detail. Finding places where oneself was incorrect is a good way to grow. Unfortunately, chat communities on the modern internet are more about performative trolling (as you would put it), rather than ever admitting mistake or being wrong. It's about noise generation and not much more. With luck, hacker news can be a last bastion where the noise is unwelcome, whereas facts, data and analsyis are welcome. That is a difference between reddit or Twitter & here.

seadan83 2y ago

The point in contention "I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling." - others have pointed out that the histrionics is your perspective. You noted statements like "the site will be down all the time", others have corrected that they have seen statements like "greater downtime" - and the data does back that up. - therefore, what are you talking about exactly? This is why I'm saying you have the burden of proof to show exactly what you are talking about, with quotes, links, citations, data. Otherwise it seems that you're making a mountain of a mole-hill from cherry-picked data that likely fit your own confirmation bias. Which is not really a useful insight when someone is just saying: "see, gee, that one person over there - they exaggerated!" Is it really a large number of people that were making incorrect statements, enough that you're not just cherry-picking data? Hopefully you got the point, that nobody's word is really just taken at face value here, and those that are - are opinions and are not worth much (which goes for my opinions too, and anyone else's here.)